TRUMP for Prez

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Hey did you guys read about the wiki leaks about Hillary running guns and heavy arms to Syrian Rebels to destabilize Syria and that they ultimately joined ISIS? I guess that was the whole Bengahzi thing. The actual American Embassy was in Tripoli. This was a gun running operation from Hillary. Interesting stuff. I thought she swore under oath that she did not know anything about it? Going to be interesting.....

No, did you read stuff from there? If so can you post some links to the source docs in question?

He can't because it doesn't exist. This is just the same Breitbart-esque BS blogs repeating what Assange SAYS he has and will eventually reveal. He's already come out and said he'll do anything to discredit Clinton and so this is his new MO - whip the idiots into a frenzy just long enough that the news of what he's teasing gets around the echo chamber and becomes an established narrative, then move on to the next lie.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

There is zero difference if the money was given or loaned. You still have to succeed. Difference is a person who does not have to worry about the amount can wheel, deal and roll the dice with less stress. I am ok with that. I will never be in that position. I am going to be lucky to not hand my family a bill when I die. I will consider that a win compared to where my family was able to start me.

Everything is negotiable. That is a big lie we tell ourselves. Not that I am good at it mind you, however these are all rules we put in the sand. What Trump is getting at is China is widely known to be under valuing their money. Thus the US debt is higher to them. Part of the strategy is for America to print more and more money to devalue our currency to actually lessen our debt load if I understand it correctly. Or you do what Trump says and you renegotiate the debt with China.

Yes I believe in trickle down economics from the aspect that free money in the economy is what allows second tier and third tier businesses capture fundss Keynesian economics or trickle up is what we had during the Clinton years leading to the Bush years with the housing crash. Money was made available to the poorer people to get home loans. That increased demand but also increase volatility. Eventually the poor people are priced out of the market again. Now middle class people can not afford a house. It takes a mixture of the two and depends where you are in the country. Small town America I think is classic trickle down. Usually propped up by a couple major employers. The poor to middle class have no leverage to drive anything economically. If the major businesses leave, the town dies. Places like the bay area of California that gets money hand over fist from all over the world, you can drive markets from the top and bottom. That is why the local governments get in on the act. They raise taxes higher and higher because they can. The money is there.

Here is an article among many on the Iran deal:

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...an-deal-2015-7

Basically Iran is being allowed to produce it's own fuel which basically gives them a nuclear bomb in short order. They absolutely support terrorist organizations and we are giving them a free pass to be the premier power in the middle east. Why not give Iraq that direction?

Again, i don't see the problem with the Iran deal. Of course they are an influential power in the middle east, they're the only ones stable. The deal has drastically reduced the total nuclear facilities.

You are completely dumb huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-JScQnU9_E You would think living in California you would be a little more in touch with economical drivers.

It wasn't the people on welfare buying homes jackass. It was the working class buying second and third homes with ****ty mortgages. But as previously stated by others in this chain, just because someone can buy a second and third home, should they?

Originally Posted by pesos

He can't because it doesn't exist. This is just the same Breitbart-esque BS blogs repeating what Assange SAYS he has and will eventually reveal. He's already come out and said he'll do anything to discredit Clinton and so this is his new MO - whip the idiots into a frenzy just long enough that the news of what he's teasing gets around the echo chamber and becomes an established narrative, then move on to the next lie.

Interesting. Sounds similar to Moveon.org garbage you were in love with in the last elections. Only difference is so far is wiki links has actually release things that have made people lose their jobs.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

Again, i don't see the problem with the Iran deal. Of course they are an influential power in the middle east, they're the only ones stable. The deal has drastically reduced the total nuclear facilities.

You are completely dumb huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-JScQnU9_E You would think living in California you would be a little more in touch with economical drivers.

It wasn't the people on welfare buying homes jackass. It was the working class buying second and third homes with ****ty mortgages. But as previously stated by others in this chain, just because someone can buy a second and third home, should they?

Dumb and jackass huh? You must not have had someone put a foot up your a$$ speaking like that.

Not going to watch your video at this point. So why don't you give the cliff notes. Why don't you tell me how the working class got the ability to get loans for second and third mortgages tough guy? Working class in california are the poor people. Working class is priced out of the market unless they want to live 1.5 hours one way drive to work or shack up with a house full of people. It is not a matter of should they. They were allowed to though trickle up economics. Make money available at the bottom as to drive the markets. Problem is, if you make money available at the bottom, you also make it available everywhere in between. Money will flow and so will inflation.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

Again, i don't see the problem with the Iran deal. Of course they are an influential power in the middle east, they're the only ones stable. The deal has drastically reduced the total nuclear facilities.

You are completely dumb huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-JScQnU9_E You would think living in California you would be a little more in touch with economical drivers.

It wasn't the people on welfare buying homes jackass. It was the working class buying second and third homes with ****ty mortgages. But as previously stated by others in this chain, just because someone can buy a second and third home, should they?

Also, Trickle up economics ust like Trickle Down economics. You have to hope that some people do the right things. That is where policy from the Feds comes in. The make money flow away by taxes or unstable business environments. Just like the trickle up economics. Money was there and people extended themselves mostly because they were allowed too. It takes moderation but everyone is in it for the big splash.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

No, did you read stuff from there? If so can you post some links to the source docs in question?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7960/w...-james-barrett

Not sure if it is public yet, but they say 17,000 pertain to Libya alone. Stay tuned......

Also on Iran. You really think giving a country technology (that WILL lead to them having a nuclear bomb) that they have swarn to use to blow Israel off the map is a good idea? If so, then I think you are as suicidal as the rest of the democrats.

[QUOTE=deltahoosier;1941521]Dumb and jackass huh? You must not have had someone put a foot up your a$$ speaking like that.


Ha! Don't worry. He and thewakeisreal are both trolls who are two big vag's that are too scared to even say anything about themselves in their profiles. Liberals..... Spineless, gutless and heartless. Some things will never change.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7960/w...-james-barrett

Not sure if it is public yet, but they say 17,000 pertain to Libya alone. Stay tuned......

Yeah but that's basically a story about what someone else reports Assange says he has. Which is all well and good but I'd like to see the actual source docs and draw my own conclusions. If there really is such an avalanche of damning evidence, the evidence should speak for itself.

No matter what evidence that is put forth about how evil Clinton really is as a person and political figure, you could never convince the liberals.

You could have a signed affidavit by Hillary herself admitting to her crimes, video taped by CNN, and confirmed by the Pope and they would still say that the GOP is just making up another fabricated story and deny everything.

At least folks within the GOP are admitting how bad Trump is and that he is a disaster in the making and not just rooting for their team. The GOP is a complete cluster eff for sure.

Vote none of the above or Deeznuts.

Originally Posted by allzway

Vote none of the above or Deeznuts.

Or, vote for Gary Johnson/Bill Weld - the only true level headed conservative in the race.

Originally Posted by fouroheight68

Or, vote for Gary Johnson/Bill Weld - the only true level headed conservative in the race.

I mean you know he's pro-choice, pro environment, and believes in global warming, though, right? Those things right there are a real tough sell within the GOP.

[QUOTE=markj;1941540]

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Dumb and jackass huh? You must not have had someone put a foot up your a$$ speaking like that.


Ha! Don't worry. He and thewakeisreal are both trolls who are two big vag's that are too scared to even say anything about themselves in their profiles. Liberals..... Spineless, gutless and heartless. Some things will never change.

Your profile is private...

Again, you are the one who has to resort to the name game cause everything you have brought to the table is complete bullsh*t. At least with Delta who I vehemently disagree with, I can at least respect his POV because he has done research on stuff. Just a vastly different point of view. You literally brought nothing to the conversation and everything you tried to bring was proven 100% wrong, so you resort to the name game.

[QUOTE=TheWakeIsReal;1941562][QUOTE=markj;1941540]

Your profile is private...

Nope. Wrong again. If I click on my " view public profile" it all comes up in great detail. Yours doesn't. Keep trollin...

[QUOTE=markj;1941569][QUOTE=TheWakeIsReal;1941562]

Originally Posted by markj

Your profile is private...

Nope. Wrong again. If I click on my " view public profile" it all comes up in great detail. Yours doesn't. Keep trollin...

Wow. I honestly didn't think you could go any lower. It's YOUR own profile. Why would your account privatize your profile from you. Oh man. Stay on the right please!!

[QUOTE=TheWakeIsReal;1941574][QUOTE=markj;1941569]

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Wow. I honestly didn't think you could go any lower. It's YOUR own profile. Why would your account privatize your profile from you. Oh man. Stay on the right please!!

I just checked and where it asks "who can read your profile"?, I have it set to "registered users." That's not private.

I also notice you bang your head a lot. That explains your liberalism.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Yeah but that's basically a story about what someone else reports Assange says he has. Which is all well and good but I'd like to see the actual source docs and draw my own conclusions. If there really is such an avalanche of damning evidence, the evidence should speak for itself.

I agree. Assange said he is holding to do the most damage from what I understand. He has it out for Hillary. He already toppled the DNC. We all know Hillary is crooked as they come. She should already be in jail for her classified material handling. We will see how it unfolds.

So even with the budget deficit still $500B in the red you guys are on board with Trump's lower tax schedule? What do you expect him to cut to balance the budget?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

On the taxes front, I read on here a lot along the lines of "if taxes go up, that's socialist and I'm going to quit working and go on the dole myself because I'm not motivated to have the wealth spread around and work hard so others can live off the dole."

And I also read a lot of lamenting for the Reagan years (a time when taxes were higher than they are now).

Is there a time when we were taxed perfectly? When taxes were "just right" in Goldilocks terms? Because we've consistently spent more than we collected since Reagan was elected, with a brief tech bubble exception during the Clinton years.

Even if we slash spending now, we've got 35 years of overspending to contend with. Seems like another good reason to cut taxes?

Did not comment on this from before..

The Reagan years was a time where we knew who the bad guys were and we as a nation found ourselves again. We believed in us. (I feel like I am going to break into the Tallagega (sp?) Nights Amy Adams speech before the big race). Taxes may have been higher but they were lowered drastically from the previous administration. That gave a huge flood of income and investment (between government and private). That paid off for the coming tech boom.

I guess we have to wrap our head around tax cuts and increases. Tax cuts and increases in my opinion are about choosing winners and losers. I see the government as the shock absorber not the driver of an economy. It is we the people not we the government as a stand alone entity. Lower taxes puts more money in the economy. It depends on where that money goes I guess. If it leaves the country then it is bad. If it goes back in the economy, then it is good.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I mean you know he's pro-choice, pro environment, and believes in global warming, though, right? Those things right there are a real tough sell within the GOP.

You mean he's pro keeping black america's birth rate down as prescribed by Margaret Sanger (Hillary's quoted hero), pro new age religion, and believes in a made up world wide control mechanism, though, right? (Figured I would fix it for you, please continue).

You can't make this **** up...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-donald-226648

Melania Trump was an illegal immigrant, working, without papers! It may not be confirmed, but it isn't hard to figure out.

Que up conservative response on the Clintons and/or how the media made her do it.

Originally Posted by fly135

So even with the budget deficit still $500B in the red you guys are on board with Trump's lower tax schedule? What do you expect him to cut to balance the budget?

I have to see. Part of our complaints (you included if I recall), is all the money that is off shore in corporate accounts. It would be nice to have a climate that would repatriate that money to the US.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

You can't make this **** up...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-donald-226648

Melania Trump was an illegal immigrant, working, without papers! It may not be confirmed, but it isn't hard to figure out.

Que up conservative response on the Clintons and/or how the media made her do it.

Why should we care? Democrats had actual illegal immigrants on the stage. They had actual people who should be detained in front of the cameras speaking to the American public. Talking about rubbing it in that they are above the law in our faces.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

I guess we have to wrap our head around tax cuts and increases. Tax cuts and increases in my opinion are about choosing winners and losers. I see the government as the shock absorber not the driver of an economy. It is we the people not we the government as a stand alone entity. Lower taxes puts more money in the economy. It depends on where that money goes I guess. If it leaves the country then it is bad. If it goes back in the economy, then it is good.

Careful Delta! That's starting to sound nuanced and thoughtful.... something that just doesn't jibe with current GOP doctrine that the "correct" rate of taxation is always less than the current rate of taxation.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Careful Delta! That's starting to sound nuanced and thoughtful.... something that just doesn't jibe with current GOP doctrine that the "correct" rate of taxation is always less than the current rate of taxation.

Sorry I will do better. Look it takes taxes to run a government I don't deny that. Question is who do you get them from?

Tax the wealthy too much and the money goes off shore. Why does it go off shore? Because trade deals make it so it does not matter where it goes. They just invest in plants over seas and sell back the US anyway. That is why the stock market goes up. It does not matter one bit to the wealthy. In the mean time the working class shrinks because they do not have what is considered low to medium skilled jobs that pay worth anything. That is why I am against the trade deals.

Tax the middle class? That is where the real buying power is. They are most likely to want a piece of the good life and are close enough that the struggle is real keeping up with the Jones's. Where does the middle class get their buying power from? Do they have the ability to demand the real high end equipment that is needed for industry? Can they attract international purchases from their position? No they can't. They either get it jobs from the government or selling mid tier goods and services to the hire wage earners or to each other if they have products that are in need. I think it depends on where you live and what is middle class on weather or not they have to live on trickle up or trickle down.

The poor? They have buying power only by the army of ants method. They buy essentials at best. Where to they get their money? Usually the government or third tier jobs. Do they have the ability to drive markets? Probably not. They rely the most on others spending their cash on un-needed items like McDonalds and so on or through taxation. Usually the middle class will turn away from those supplying the working poor jobs when times get tough.

Of course there is always enough money for all sectors to buy drugs and booze. Nothing like keeping gang bangers and private prisons stocked full of customers.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Taxes may have been higher but they were lowered drastically from the previous administration. That gave a huge flood of income and investment (between government and private). That paid off for the coming tech boom.

There are two things that benefited the Reagan economy. A drastic drop in interest rates from the Fed and increased deficit spending. The Fed can no longer use lowered interest rates to drive anything. That pot has been tapped out. So in essence both of the tools that helped Reagan are no longer available.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Why should we care? Democrats had actual illegal immigrants on the stage. They had actual people who should be detained in front of the cameras speaking to the American public. Talking about rubbing it in that they are above the law in our faces.

So did the RNC... They had an illegal immigrant up there who stole someone else's speech

Originally Posted by fly135

There are two things that benefited the Reagan economy. A drastic drop in interest rates from the Fed and increased deficit spending. The Fed can no longer use lowered interest rates to drive anything. That pot has been tapped out. So in essence both of the tools that helped Reagan are no longer available.

I agree. The control circuit is maxed out.

Originally Posted by pesos

So did the RNC... They had an illegal immigrant up there who stole someone else's speech

Only the important parts

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Why should we care? Democrats had actual illegal immigrants on the stage. They had actual people who should be detained in front of the cameras speaking to the American public. Talking about rubbing it in that they are above the law in our faces.

It isn't very relative to the office. But completely comical that her 1/2 her husbands narrative is deport illegals, when she was an illegal. Just speaks to how out of touch he is all.

But case in point. When a conservative is hit with an argument, deflect! Do they give you guys a handbook?

Yeah. They gave us the liberal handbook.

If she is illegal, I say deport her hot ass.

I saw this nice little nugget where someone bashing Trump for his build a wall comments.

Apparently both Hillary and Obama actually voted for a wall long before Trump mentioned it way back in 2006.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/10/wall-o04.html

Last Friday, however, she did exactly that, joining Senate Republicans and the majority of her Democratic colleagues in voting for an ignominious piece of legislation known as the “Secure Fence Act of 2006.”

The bill calls for the erection of 700 miles of fortified fencing stretching across the entire length of Arizona’s frontier with Mexico as well as portions of the southern borders of California, New Mexico and Texas. According to some estimates, the cost of such a massive project would reach $7 billion. Even Obama voted for this Fence.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...rder-fence-law

On September 29, 2006, the Senate voted 80-19 for passage of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (It passed the House on September 14, 2006, by a vote of 283-138). Clinton and Obama both voted for the act.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

It isn't very relative to the office. But completely comical that her 1/2 her husbands narrative is deport illegals, when she was an illegal. Just speaks to how out of touch he is all.

But case in point. When a conservative is hit with an argument, deflect! Do they give you guys a handbook?

Two points:

1) It is not proven she was illegal and she is now legal so it does not matter.
2) It is still the correct call to not want to saturate a country with illegal aliens regardless of his personal life. I don't really care for rich people but I understand that I would rather have them around than poor people as a general policy.

Delta, are you Jello?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Delta, are you Jello?

Who would've thought that Jello's message would resonate even more over 30 years later? One of my fav's from the DK's.

Originally Posted by allzway

I saw this nice little nugget where someone bashing Trump for his build a wall comments.

Apparently both Hillary and Obama actually voted for a wall long before Trump mentioned it way back in 2006.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/10/wall-o04.html




http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...rder-fence-law

I don't think you understand the difference between the "fence" they built and the Great Wall of Mexico Trump wants to build. It is rather understandable to have a fence around popular entry ways. To have a massive wall in the middle of the desert where you have to walk for miles upon miles to cross? Not so necessary. Trump's wall would be based upon him and a symbol of power. Nothing more.

You should look at the "fence" they built. Nothing like what Trump is proposing.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Two points:

1) It is not proven she was illegal and she is now legal so it does not matter.
2) It is still the correct call to not want to saturate a country with illegal aliens regardless of his personal life. I don't really care for rich people but I understand that I would rather have them around than poor people as a general policy.

How can it not matter when his entire campaign is kicking these people out of country? Or does that not matter because she is Slovenian and not Muslim/Mexican?

I agree you shouldn't saturate with unchecked immigrants, but when your entire campaign is based on this then it's a bit ridiculous. It would be like Hillary basing her entire campaign over email server security.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Delta, are you Jello?

Haha... nah. Not Jello. Hell I was about as poor as the came but I was not poor white trash. I had some sense about me.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

How can it not matter when his entire campaign is kicking these people out of country? Or does that not matter because she is Slovenian and not Muslim/Mexican?

I agree you shouldn't saturate with unchecked immigrants, but when your entire campaign is based on this then it's a bit ridiculous. It would be like Hillary basing her entire campaign over email server security.

I think that is a fair question however it is not based on reality. It is a straw man argument at this point. There are technically different types of illegals as well. You can be here on a tourist visa, work visa and so on. If you overstay, you are technically an illegal even if you are waiting on paperwork. That is different than sneaking across the boarder and staying and collecting benefits that the middle class has to pay for.

Also, you can show compassion for the individual while supporting a policy that is sound. I have no ill will for a hard working illegal. I am sure I deal with people in that situation on a near daily basis, however I know it is bad policy. You need to trend toward sound policy.

On muslims, you are inviting national suicide if you do not stop the flow. Europe is starting to cave already. It is going to get ugly. To ignore it is to ignore 2000 years of warfare.

It's not just the hypocrisy angle - although cmon if you're being honest that's pretty ridiculous.

A bigger issue almost is the continuous incompetence of the Trump campaign. These are the buffoons you want to run the country? They can't even properly vet the potential first lady...

And now they pulled down her website because it has her making comments that show she was working illegally on a tourist visa - guess they've never heard of the internet archives lol...

A minor distraction story to cover up the $400,000,000 ransom paid to free more Iran hostages. This country is screwed. Lies, misguidance and deceit are now well established hallmarks of the current admin and the democratic party as a whole. Sad.

Actually, the ransom just buttresses already well established MO's.

Looks like trump is in free fall at the moment. Shame. Maybe Hilderbeast will be the Prez.

Originally Posted by pesos

A bigger issue almost is the continuous incompetence of the Trump campaign. These are the buffoons you want to run the country?

Heard a very good analogy on an xm conservative talk show last night.... that Trump is an expert at manipulating the media to gain noteriety, where "any press is good press as long as they spell your name right." Sortof in the Kardashian kind of way.

But where he is falling on his face is using that strategy in politics. In the celeb approach you can say all kinds of outlandish things, and it sure will keep you in the press. But in politics, those outlandish statements get turned around and used against you.

Here, I don't think Hillary has even had to start punching hard. Every day brings something dumber and dumber from the Trump campaign (something I wouldn't have thought possible many times over the last year). It's like a black hole, where dumb doubles down on dump and the level of disorganization and ill preparation keeps getting exponentially bigger.

On the one hand, that's kinda OK. But on the other hand I almost wonder if trump has a thick enough skin to stick it out all the way to the election, by which time he's going to make Sarah Palin look like a policy wonk. If the crowds start thinning at his rallies and the press is all over him, is he going to want to go through with the debates, where he will assuredly be smoked?

Does anyone see him with the remotest chance of winning at this point?

Originally Posted by markj

A minor distraction story to cover up the $400,000,000 ransom paid to free more Iran hostages. This country is screwed. Lies, misguidance and deceit are now well established hallmarks of the current admin and the democratic party as a whole. Sad.

You realize Reagan did the same thing right? Even after he said he wouldn't meet with the demand of Barbarians. I think a massive load of weapons was included in the multi billion deal. So...

BTW. Still waiting on an explanation on that horrible bible quote you provided

The only way he's gonna win now is if he miraculously starts taking the advice of his advisors. He's his own worst enemy. His shtick worked well in the primary, but not now. Even his own wife has been telling him to act more presidential and he refuses.

BTW. Still waiting on an explanation on that horrible bible quote you provided[/QUOTE]

I'll work on that in the near future.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Heard a very good analogy on an xm conservative talk show last night.... that Trump is an expert at manipulating the media to gain noteriety, where "any press is good press as long as they spell your name right." Sortof in the Kardashian kind of way.

But where he is falling on his face is using that strategy in politics. In the celeb approach you can say all kinds of outlandish things, and it sure will keep you in the press. But in politics, those outlandish statements get turned around and used against you.

Here, I don't think Hillary has even had to start punching hard. Every day brings something dumber and dumber from the Trump campaign (something I wouldn't have thought possible many times over the last year). It's like a black hole, where dumb doubles down on dump and the level of disorganization and ill preparation keeps getting exponentially bigger.

On the one hand, that's kinda OK. But on the other hand I almost wonder if trump has a thick enough skin to stick it out all the way to the election, by which time he's going to make Sarah Palin look like a policy wonk. If the crowds start thinning at his rallies and the press is all over him, is he going to want to go through with the debates, where he will assuredly be smoked?

Does anyone see him with the remotest chance of winning at this point?

I agree. I noticed every time the dems **** up instead of just letting it run its course Trump would come out and say something absurd and takes the negative attention away from them.

7/24 - DNC Email hack breaks 7/27 Trump ask Russia to find more emails
7/7 - James Comey gets grilled by Congress - 7/7 Trump list his favorite tyrants

If conservatives didn't want Hillary in the white house all they had to do was nominate anyone marginally political. But instead everyone confused Trumps entertainment value for policy. Just look at the date of when this thread started.

Wow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b04414d1f370b9

I love the detail he goes into about the video he watched. Twice, he described it. TWICE! How can y'all even defend this? Hillary might be bad, but she does not even come close to Trump's level.

You can't defend it. Trump is done. Time for him to pick up his bat and go home with his head down.

seems so quaint that this ruined a candidate ....

I don't think Trump is done. Only ones who give a crap are the press and democrats. I don't care what they have to say anyway. They are the reason the country is heading the direction it is anyway (which is open boarders pro UN and making criminality a legitimate position). There is a reason they are trying to put the debates against NFL football. They don't want people to watch them. Once they start debating policy, I think Clinton will be shown for who she is. Trump just needs to worry about Hillary and let all the other political hacks fight each other.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

I don't think Trump is done. Only ones who give a crap are the press and democrats. I don't care what they have to say anyway. They are the reason the country is heading the direction it is anyway (which is open boarders pro UN and making criminality a legitimate position). There is a reason they are trying to put the debates against NFL football. They don't want people to watch them. Once they start debating policy, I think Clinton will be shown for who she is. Trump just needs to worry about Hillary and let all the other political hacks fight each other.

Listening to conservative talk radio yesterday, it seems like a lot of people (callers) are also fretting over trump pooping the bed. There are also republican party insiders, of which 70% surveyed actually wish trump would drop out.

Re NFL football: the schedule was agreed to 18 months ago by a bipartisan committee.

Does trump have even one "policy" that he can debate on? I mean is "build a wall, mexico will pay for it" a policy? At this point after gaffe after gaffe after gaffe, "trust me -- I'm really smart" will only satisfy the zealots and isn't going to persuade anyone who is on the fence.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

seems so quaint that this ruined a candidate ....

LOL. Poor Mike. Bush really gave it to him after that.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

I don't think Trump is done. Only ones who give a crap are the press and democrats. I don't care what they have to say anyway. They are the reason the country is heading the direction it is anyway (which is open boarders pro UN and making criminality a legitimate position). There is a reason they are trying to put the debates against NFL football. They don't want people to watch them. Once they start debating policy, I think Clinton will be shown for who she is. Trump just needs to worry about Hillary and let all the other political hacks fight each other.

You have got to be kidding. Trump just now, today, put together an economic advisory board. To-date he has yet to say anything about policy, but you still think he can hold his own in a debate?

There is still a lot of time between now and the election, but it is pretty much over. It would take a very, strong, unorthodox event to sway this many people:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/

The majority of his own party hates him....

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-sheet/481449/

I am not worried. Months is a lifetime for politics. At the end of the day Hillary should be in jail and is a lying swine. Everyone knows it. Everyone who seems to have dirt on her turns up dead. Everyone knows this. She is not changing. She is who she is. All Trump has to do is sound somewhat reasonable leading up to voting day.

I am not worried. Months is a lifetime for politics. At the end of the day Hillary should be in jail and is a lying swine. Everyone knows it. Everyone who seems to have dirt on her turns up dead. Everyone knows this. She is not changing. She is who she is. All Trump has to do is sound somewhat reasonable leading up to voting day.

LOL - and here is why political debate is a waste of time. "sound somewhat reasonable" - this is the bar you have to clear to get his vote and "Make America Great Again". Or at least somewhat reasonable - whatever that means.

Originally Posted by bigdtx

LOL - and here is why political debate is a waste of time. "sound somewhat reasonable" - this is the bar you have to clear to get his vote and "Make America Great Again". Or at least somewhat reasonable - whatever that means.

I think "somewhat" is all it takes at this point with Hillary. Not a single person who is on this threat can talk about her policies and what good she has done in her lengthy career. There is factual story after story of what kind of a miserable person she is to her staff. She and her husband have been disbarred for pete sake. She should be in jail for her classified material handling. She was kicked off the watergate investigations by another democrat for being too dishonest. Her and the DNC just got busted for cheating Bernie in the primaries in which the top DNC staff had to resign. There is no way the Bernie crowd is even going to show up for her. The list goes on and on for her. She is not even able to be defended by her own people.

So that leaves us with Trump. The argument everyone is making is his wife and that he says off the cuff stuff. Not that he is a horrible person to work for. Not that he is a dump person. Not that he is a crook. So yes, I think the bar with beating Hillary is pretty low to be honest. Right now everything that is floating around is politics. Nothing truthful. It will wash out when they hear him in the debates. That will put the whole thing in context. Either he will seal the deal or he won't at that time. All I know is he just needs a pulse because I will never vote democrat based on how they do business in California and they are Pro UN, open boarder communists on the national level. Run on US first smaller government platform and they may get my attention.

She has NOT been disbarred. Bill was -- it's true. And that's bad enough. Don't add a lie on top, it makes your argument weaker.

Re watergate..... yawn. I mean seriously are we going to the 70s? But anyway, watergate: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

Please provide evidence of "cheating bernie." Evidence. Actual facts.

Delta in CA you can vote for whomever you want.... you aren't asserting that Trump has a scintilla of a chance in California are you?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

She has NOT been disbarred. Bill was -- it's true. And that's bad enough. Don't add a lie on top, it makes your argument weaker.

Re watergate..... yawn. I mean seriously are we going to the 70s? But anyway, watergate: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

Please provide evidence of "cheating bernie." Evidence. Actual facts.

Delta in CA you can vote for whomever you want.... you aren't asserting that Trump has a scintilla of a chance in California are you?

Actually she is not allowed to practice in Arkansas for "not continuing her education" however many times lawyers will retire their license or go inactive to avoid disbarment. We may not know why she did not continue it. Maybe see does not like Arkansas.

The Watergate thing. There are several versions and snopes is just another version.

If there is no evidence of "cheating" Bernie then why have the DNC leadership resign. One thing people need to learn in life. It is not the actual event but the story we tell after the event. All actions leading up to and after with the DNC point to him being cheated. Maybe not on a technicality but tell that to his supporters.Their story is what is going to be the truth when they stay away.

Nothing in what I wrote said anything about Trump having a chance in california. I said based on how I see democrats run california and what I see from the national democrats, that the democrat party is trying to separate itself as an American institution to become a UN institution. All their anti American policies and their support for lawlessness will never get me in their corner. If you want to talk about division of labor and workers rights, I am all ears.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Please provide evidence of "cheating bernie." Evidence. Actual facts.

If she didn't **** Bernie just put a wig on him and Bill will... :P


Wait! It gets better...

In Bill's voice:

"Danget Bernie, this cigar smells like ****!"

Amusing at best and I come back everyday to be entertained.

That said, wow....

EJ you're in Utah, right? Are these polls way off, or is there really a chance for Trump to lose if Johnson does well enough?

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

They are the reason the country is heading the direction it is anyway

Oh really? I thought it was because whenever republicans start losing they turn against the country. You know... things like saying the President is paying ransom for hostages. Basically trying to convince our enemies that they can exploit weaknesses that don't exist.

Originally Posted by pesos

EJ you're in Utah, right? Are these polls way off, or is there really a chance for Trump to lose if Johnson does well enough?

Yes, strange that Utah may actually do something other that straight GOP ballot punch.

I would say "I wouldn't bet on it", but as the trainwreck continues, it looks like GJ may have a friend in Utah. I'll believe it when I see it.

DT is not popular in Utah, though HRC is even less popular.

Of all the possible candidates to choose from , I wonder how we ended up with DT and HRC? Is there anyone else out there?

Kind of hard to believe that's the best they could come up with, eh?

So far we have Grant, Mark, David and Delta predicting a Trump win. Did I miss anyone?

well, I would like to be on that list

but I just don't see it happening

I really write the best letters - it's what everybody's saying - my letters are bigly yuuuuuuuge.

It depressing to think that people are choosing a President because bathroom rules are at the top of their agenda. When people talk about Obamacare being expensive, they always ignore the fact that many people couldn't get HI before and the rules put in place previously were very discriminatory and inflationary.

Originally Posted by fly135

It depressing to think that people are choosing a President because bathroom rules are at the top of their agenda. When people talk about Obamacare being expensive, they always ignore the fact that many people couldn't get HI before and the rules put in place previously were very discriminatory and inflationary.

As long as I can buy a nicer boat without Obamacare, I don't care who doesn't have health insurance.-GOP

Originally Posted by fly135

It depressing to think that people are choosing a President because bathroom rules are at the top of their agenda. When people talk about Obamacare being expensive, they always ignore the fact that many people couldn't get HI before and the rules put in place previously were very discriminatory and inflationary.

The opposing arguments for ObamaCare could be some of the most baseless in politics. Most right wingers don't even realize Massachusetts' state healthcare, AKA: RomneyCare, pre-dates and is is strikingly similar to ObamaCare

Hailed under a republican, rejected under a democrat.

Unfortunately Obamacare doesn't correct the biggest problem in HC... The lack of free market forces combined with the lack of cost controls. You can't have it both ways. I.E. the govt both pushing people and money into the marketplace without controlling the costs and have a sustainable HC system. What the ACA does is get people previously blocked from HI due to cost or rejection into affordable HI (relative to what they had before). We can look at other modern countries with universal HC and see they are doing it for 1/2 per capita that we are and yet Republicans still act as though that's impossible and cling to the model of denying people HI forcing them into extremely expensive ER HC.

Originally Posted by fly135

Unfortunately Obamacare doesn't correct the biggest problem in HC... The lack of free market forces combined with the lack of cost controls. You can't have it both ways. I.E. the govt both pushing people and money into the marketplace without controlling the costs and have a sustainable HC system. What the ACA does is get people previously blocked from HI due to cost or rejection into affordable HI (relative to what they had before). We can look at other modern countries with universal HC and see they are doing it for 1/2 per capita that we are and yet Republicans still act as though that's impossible and cling to the model of denying people HI forcing them into extremely expensive ER HC.

No doubt, it isn't perfect. But certainly a step in the right direction. My favorite was when Bernie was in the race promising free HC but starting at the lowest tax bracket would see an tax increase of 7%. All the conservatives lost their minds. Backing into some math, if you earn $20K a year and your taxes go up $45 a month, but your health insurance goes from $300 (single & no dependents) to $0.00! That is +$355 a month to your bottom line! How is that more expensive?

Liberals need to take the word "free' out of their lexicon. We all know nothing is "free". And conservatives just capitalize on the word to pretend that liberals don't understand the word free.

Unfortunately Americans in general only think on the surface. That's how we end up with a bonehead like Trump running for President. It's too much work to actually think for yourself as to the significant problems we have and why they occur. It's so much easier to vote for a guy that's telling you the real problems are caused by someone else and you don't have to sacrifice a thing if you just vote for Mr Bonehead.

The govt using the tax code to supply welfare to HI companies is inflationary. We have professional societies to protect the legal restrictions on who can provide HC services, which is inflationary. We have a pharmaceutical industry that uses govt to restrict Americans to pay the highest prices in the world for their products. Again inflationary. If you have so many rules and free market interference in effect and the costs rise to where poorer Americans can't afford HC then you effectively removed their individual right to HC services by the rules you put in place. Ultimately that makes those who have access to those services responsible to subsidize those who can no longer afford it. Why should the poor be declined the right to HC just because you've put rules in place to make you "safer", when in the end your "safety" comes at the expense of those who can't afford that much "quality" HC?

And..Here it is. The Anti-Trump GOP'ers have launched an independent candidate to run for office, Evan McMullin.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politi...ton/index.html

We got another clown already lining up for 2024, lol!

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/c...in-2024-080816

my premiums have doubled for what?

You won't agree, but it's so all of those previously uninsured can now be insured

no thanks

lower my premiums and let me keep my expensive doctor if I want to. I worked for the ability to choose who I want to see and what procedures I want.....without waiting in line, or listing how many guns I own

Obamacare and universal care is for the birds

Originally Posted by ord27

my premiums have doubled for what?

You won't agree, but it's so all of those previously uninsured can now be insured

no thanks

lower my premiums and let me keep my expensive doctor if I want to. I worked for the ability to choose who I want to see and what procedures I want.....without waiting in line, or listing how many guns I own

Obamacare and universal care is for the birds

Classic GOP thinking. It truly is sad people can't spread the love around a bit.