TRUMP for Prez

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I love this new talking point about how conservatives are the champions of gay rights.

I would not call it a champion of gay rights in the modern sense. If you happen to notice is the only places on the planet that gay people have any rights is in historically Christian countries. Christians are more conservative and absolutely will protect their churches and believes, however Christians or conservatives as a whole don't want any harm to come to gay people. And yes, you can always find some real a-holes as a counter point.

delta christian conservatives have been drug to that position by the secular western first world cultures they live in. For the "counterpoint" as you say, check out how gays are treated in Russia, Kenya, Nigeria, etc. Not individual specific a-holes, but rather cultures dominated by christianity.

It is absolutely true. I don't have a problem with him saying it. One of the reasons that he is so popular, is that Oblumma and others have avoided taking a hard stance. His popularity is a reaction to that. If Oblumma has taken a hard stance, then he and his team have failed to get the word out. A leader that can reach across the isle and speak to those that don't speak the same love language, is what this country needs and has needed. Oblubber has failed miserably at that.

Trump is just filling the void that mr president (lower case intended) has left

That's not to say that Trump will be able to rally the country.....

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

On the side of that, I find it a little disturbing that anyone can excuse people and their violence. That is like saying the girl should have known what she was wearing would get her jumped. Shining a light on the roaches is not the flashlight holders problem for the roaches.

You should work on discerning the difference between an excuse and someone simply stating cause and effect.

Not really sure how your analogy fits, but this is the best way to make it fit what I'm saying. If there are cockroaches, you know they will scatter if you flip on the light. No need to be surprised by that.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

delta christian conservatives have been drug to that position by the secular western first world cultures they live in. For the "counterpoint" as you say, check out how gays are treated in Russia, Kenya, Nigeria, etc. Not individual specific a-holes, but rather cultures dominated by christianity.

Considering Russia was under communist rule for almost a hundred years, I would say that is not exactly true. Communist pretty much outlawed Christianity.

Nigeria and Kenya are being savaged by Boko Haram which is an Islamic group. Christians and "moderate" muslilms are fighting for their life.

Originally Posted by fly135

You should work on discerning the difference between an excuse and someone simply stating cause and effect.

Not really sure how your analogy fits, but this is the best way to make it fit what I'm saying. If there are cockroaches, you know they will scatter if you flip on the light. No need to be surprised by that.

I would not be surprised by it. If you have roaches in your apartment, I would not blame your neighbor for turning on the light for your roach problem though. I think I would want to clean out the roaches instead.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

I would not be surprised by it. If you have roaches in your apartment, I would not blame your neighbor for turning on the light for your roach problem though. I think I would want to clean out the roaches instead.

Of course. But that's not really relevant to the point I was making.

Originally Posted by ord27

It is absolutely true. I don't have a problem with him saying it.

Neither do I. I have no sympathy for religious BS and don't agree with most fundamental religious ideology at all. I think that most Islamic countries are sh*tholes of human rights abuse. But I'm not the leader of the US and don't have a public platform when my beliefs if outspoken could lead the fringe element to violence against people who rightfully should be allowed to live and practice their religion on peace.

Originally Posted by ord27

One of the reasons that he is so popular, is that Oblumma and others have avoided taking a hard stance.

So it's popular to not goad people into a violent and warlike mentality. I see that as a good thing. I guess when you have a long period of peace people forget that war sucks even if you have overwhelming power. If they had drafted the mothers and fathers instead of the sons during the Vietnam era that war wouldn't have lasted 6 months. That's how f**ked up people are when they get complacent about war and forget how much damage it does. Nevertheless I'm not thanking Bush for reminding us.

^"Neither do I"

Too late to edit. I meant that I don't have a problem with people in general saying radical Islam. But I expect our President to exhibit more discretion than the general public in his public speech.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Considering Russia was under communist rule for almost a hundred years, I would say that is not exactly true. Communist pretty much outlawed Christianity.

Nigeria and Kenya are being savaged by Boko Haram which is an Islamic group. Christians and "moderate" muslilms are fighting for their life.

well it's the commie element in this nation (dreaded progressives) who have drug christian conservatives into a begrudging tolerance of the sodomites, ain't it? To suggest that christian conservatives have been the drivers of social progress on gay rights is just plain silly.

Trumps Latest

http://youtu.be/xUW2-MUonbo

Trump calls Hillary "the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency"
LOL.

i don't think he is gonna dial it back anytime. Tella prompter or not.

lol. Gotta love Petraeus is all good yet Hillary who hasn't even been charged with anything is the corrupt one.

she never will be charged. She's above the law.....or at least perceived to be. Isn't that the point?

No, that isn't the point I was getting at. I'm saying that most anti-Hillary people seem to forget about the Petraeus gig and somehow say Hillary should be burned at the stake for what she did. Quite the double standard.

ok. They both, at the very least, should lose their careers

Originally Posted by grant_west

Trump calls Hillary "the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency"

This thread is the devil, first i make someone agree with vag, now i agree with trump. Make it stop!

Originally Posted by ord27

ok. They both, at the very least, should lose their careers

But Petraeus didn't. Not even close. That is the double standard and why it is hilarious when the right screams crooked Hillary.

you've got to start somewhere. I can't believe that there is anyone that doesn't think that she's corrupt.

Originally Posted by ralph

This thread is the devil, first i make someone agree with vag, now i agree with trump. Make it stop!

I disagree with Trump. Nixon was worse.

Originally Posted by ord27

you've got to start somewhere. I can't believe that there is anyone that doesn't think that she's corrupt.

Doesn't matter. The Republicans were unable to produce a suitable alternative.

Originally Posted by fly135

Of course. But that's not really relevant to the point I was making.

Fair enough.

agreed
Mickey Mouse could have easily won in November, and the republicans nominate Goofy.....

TRUMP comes across crazy sometimes but HILLARY is corrupt All The Time. Her & Bill are the Clare & Frank Underwood from House of Cards in real life. Its funny how both TRUMP and HILLARY have the Same Issues. Neither can unite each other's party, The best is when I hear sanders supporters Hate Hillary so much they would rather vote TRUMP vs Hillary.

"HILLARY for PRISON 2016 "

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

well it's the commie element in this nation (dreaded progressives) who have drug christian conservatives into a begrudging tolerance of the sodomites, ain't it? To suggest that christian conservatives have been the drivers of social progress on gay rights is just plain silly.

You have to define tolerance. I really don't remember hearing of the Salem Gay trials or anything like that.

The big fight was about marriage. Gays already had the ability for legal contracts. Marriage predated government if I am correct. The fight was about gays and the forced acceptance in the churches. There is subtle issues that happen when you make things into laws.

With that said, you so called commie's/ progressives goal is to remove religion and replace it with government. They are about removing family and replacing it with government. That is why kids were encouraged to tell on their parents if the parents were not towing the state sanctioned line.

They are not about tolerance, they are about ridding the population of anything that people can turn to beside the state. They know they can attack the churches through gay activism. Christians have zero issue with fairness when it comes to legal contracts with gay people. I know I never did.

Originally Posted by fly135

Doesn't matter. The Republicans were unable to produce a suitable alternative.

You mean someone who wasn't taking money form the Chinese while writing policy regarding the Chinese while in office?

Wonder which candidate got filthy rich while in a public service job and how that happened?

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

You have to define tolerance. I really don't remember hearing of the Salem Gay trials or anything like that.

The big fight was about marriage. Gays already had the ability for legal contracts. Marriage predated government if I am correct. The fight was about gays and the forced acceptance in the churches. There is subtle issues that happen when you make things into laws.

With that said, you so called commie's/ progressives goal is to remove religion and replace it with government. They are about removing family and replacing it with government. That is why kids were encouraged to tell on their parents if the parents were not towing the state sanctioned line.

They are not about tolerance, they are about ridding the population of anything that people can turn to beside the state. They know they can attack the churches through gay activism. Christians have zero issue with fairness when it comes to legal contracts with gay people. I know I never did.

Good grief, red herring much?

Christians are super tolerant of gays, just their right to marry and their dirty dirty bedroom practices. but other than that, republicans are champions of gay rights. Oh or their right to adopt. but other than that.

check out the states where anti-sodomy laws were still on the books when struck down in 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy..._United_States

just a coincidence that those states are in the bible belt. Or perhaps a communist conspiracy to make gay loving christians look bad?

^Yeah, and Trump is still worse after all that. Pretty amazing that's the best the GOP's got.

Rod knows very well that the legal contract avenue puts an undue financial burden on US citizens, making them second class citizens. There are also countless benefits accorded marriage at both the state and federal level that are not covered via such contracts, not the least of which simply being able to be with a family member during hospitalization.

This was never about churches - if it was, Rod et al would have been pushing to make it so the state simply issues civil unions and reserve "marriage" as a nonlegal thing handled by houses of worship. Rod has contradicted himself a lot on this issue, arguing how marriage is fundamentally about a stable society, important to government, how people are hypocrites for supporting gay rights without engaging in gay sex acts, etc - now all of a sudden it's simply about churches being "attacked"... :-/

I've always found it amusing that the gay community champions gay rights, now transgender, but steers very clear of polygamy.

The best solution is to remove anything about marriage from the tax code. Leave everyone's choices between them and their God

Originally Posted by pesos

Rod knows very well that the legal contract avenue puts an undue financial burden on US citizens, making them second class citizens. There are also countless benefits accorded marriage at both the state and federal level that are not covered via such contracts, not the least of which simply being able to be with a family member during hospitalization.

This was never about churches - if it was, Rod et al would have been pushing to make it so the state simply issues civil unions and reserve "marriage" as a nonlegal thing handled by houses of worship. Rod has contradicted himself a lot on this issue, arguing how marriage is fundamentally about a stable society, important to government, how people are hypocrites for supporting gay rights without engaging in gay sex acts, etc - now all of a sudden it's simply about churches being "attacked"... :-/

Civil union is a legal contract. Marriage is a church issue for lack of a better term. There is absolutely nothing that contradicts my thoughts on this. What left wants is to use the issue to remove tax exempt status from churches. They wanted to box churches into having to provide ceremonies or lose the tax status. If they lost tax status then they can go after them on a different level. I have even seen it talked about openly on progressive website forums. Believe it or not, there is a radical portion (progressives/ communists) that don't give a crap about gay people as a group. They are after the churches and the family.

By your version not saying married is second class citizen. That is a label you chose to use. No one can make you feel anyway unless you let them.

The main point of this is, Islamic nations would never let this even be a topic. Over 800 million people believe that sharia law should be the law of the land. sharia law wants gays, women, christians (basically any non believer) subject to this barbaric culture. You leftist are so busy trying to "right fight" that you vote for your own death as long as your team wins.

Originally Posted by ord27

I've always found it amusing that the gay community champions gay rights, now transgender, but steers very clear of polygamy.

The best solution is to remove anything about marriage from the tax code. Leave everyone's choices between them and their God

I agree to a point. The state needs 2.1 new humans for every couple to maintain the work force and benefits shell games. That is why the tax code is set up that way is to help lower the burden of that choice. Now it has moved to where it has no real meaning for the state as everyone has the benefit.

Originally Posted by fly135

^Yeah, and Trump is still worse after all that. Pretty amazing that's the best the GOP's got.

That is your story. You tell it.

Originally Posted by pesos

Rod knows very well that the legal contract avenue puts an undue financial burden on US citizens, making them second class citizens. There are also countless benefits accorded marriage at both the state and federal level that are not covered via such contracts, not the least of which simply being able to be with a family member during hospitalization.

This was never about churches - if it was, Rod et al would have been pushing to make it so the state simply issues civil unions and reserve "marriage" as a nonlegal thing handled by houses of worship. Rod has contradicted himself a lot on this issue, arguing how marriage is fundamentally about a stable society, important to government, how people are hypocrites for supporting gay rights without engaging in gay sex acts, etc - now all of a sudden it's simply about churches being "attacked"... :-/

Also, I am for getting rid of all burdens of the financials and always have been. I know the Christian people that I know believe that too.

Lol, anyone else watch Obama today responding to the SC erasing some of his ink? Who would have thought that his executive amnesty was over stepping his power? LMAO

I'm a little late to this party but I still want to put something out there. I'm a independent voter and I can't find a reason to vote for Hillary or Trump. What I'm finding is a list of reasons to not vote for one or the other. Trump as a candidate has three big points that I just can't get past:

1. He claims he is going to negotiate us out of debt. That debt was sold as US Bonds that are guaranteed. Assuming he is able to negotiate that then the US will loose all credit and the value of the dollar will drastically drop. Effectively driving the rich and poor into a deep recession.
2. His hostility towards free-trade - Globalization is happening rather you like or not. As long as India, China & UAE will allow the poor working conditions then we will continue to send low paying jobs that way. If you don't agree, think about where your wakeboard was made & why. If your 2017 set-up was made in Redmond or California costing 2X would you still buy it? What if another manufacture kept their 2017 mfc offshore and no price increase?
3. A f*** wall & whos going to pay for it - What is wall going to solve? Didn't Bush Sr. already try and fail miserably ? What is this hype about cartel tunnels that run deep into AZ and TX?
Bonus - His bad, awful business record. His net worth is the same as his original inheritance. If he is successful, shouldn't it be more? He should prove it with his tax records like every other candidate. He also receives an income tax credit for $500 that is for low income earners > 150K. Not to mention his envolvment in 3500 lawsuits.

To compare:

Hillary:
1 - Used a private email server. Well so did Colin Powell. Not to mention the State Dept ran on fax machine until 2001
2 - She took Wall St Money. - Again, globalization is happening and what is the problem with that?

Originally Posted by doublemwa

His hostility towards free-trade - Globalization is happening rather you like or not. As long as India, China & UAE will allow the poor working conditions then we will continue to send low paying jobs that way. If you don't agree, think about where your wakeboard was made & why. If your 2017 set-up was made in Redmond or California costing 2X would you still buy it?

Why do I have to think where my wakeboard was made or if I'd buy it if I don't agree. It's not a question of if China (or where ever) allows poor working conditions. It's a question of if we allow imports of product made under those conditions when we don't allow it to be made like that in the US. It's a question of if we want to continue to damage our economy in a manner that requires the govt to borrow and spend to replenish the loss. I don't think that Trump is the guy who can deal with this. But I do think the American public need to get a grip on reality and understand the effect of exporting over 1/2 trillion per year while pitting American workers against impoverished labor.

Sorry if I wasn't clear so let me clarify. A wakeboard made in the US, lets say a HL, is going to cost 2x as much. So if you had the choice based on price, would you pay 2x as much to support a product made in the US? Or (hypothetically) would you by a LF who is produced offshore and cost relatively the same as the previous year? So it isn't you have to think about where it was made, the price alone will indicate that. Most models show buying patterns will trend towards relative quality & price. However, when you zoom in on buyers who pay more for local products, they buy less often. Which slows the velocity of money which further reduces buying power down the line.

So if the US does not allow the products in what is the alternative? What do you mean when you say the govt replenishes the loss?

As for the reality of exporting how do you explain employers such as Apple or Walmart? They manufacture in China but both are a huge domestic economic driver.

Of course if you allow the import of cheap products people will buy them over more expensive domestic products (assuming they are even made domestically). That's pretty much been proven. The alternative is tariffing products made in countries that allow sub-standard workers pay/safety/retirement/health and environmental controls that are mandatory for domestic products. Your question about the govt replenishing the loss is indicative of the fact that very few people apply elementary level mathematics to the question of what happens when you send out 1/2 trillion of the economy over what you take in as trade.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

I'm a little late to this party but I still want to put something out there. I'm a independent voter and I can't find a reason to vote for Hillary or Trump. What I'm finding is a list of reasons to not vote for one or the other. Trump as a candidate has three big points that I just can't get past:

1. He claims he is going to negotiate us out of debt. That debt was sold as US Bonds that are guaranteed. Assuming he is able to negotiate that then the US will loose all credit and the value of the dollar will drastically drop. Effectively driving the rich and poor into a deep recession.
2. His hostility towards free-trade - Globalization is happening rather you like or not. As long as India, China & UAE will allow the poor working conditions then we will continue to send low paying jobs that way. If you don't agree, think about where your wakeboard was made & why. If your 2017 set-up was made in Redmond or California costing 2X would you still buy it? What if another manufacture kept their 2017 mfc offshore and no price increase?
3. A f*** wall & whos going to pay for it - What is wall going to solve? Didn't Bush Sr. already try and fail miserably ? What is this hype about cartel tunnels that run deep into AZ and TX?
Bonus - His bad, awful business record. His net worth is the same as his original inheritance. If he is successful, shouldn't it be more? He should prove it with his tax records like every other candidate. He also receives an income tax credit for $500 that is for low income earners > 150K. Not to mention his envolvment in 3500 lawsuits.

To compare:

Hillary:
1 - Used a private email server. Well so did Colin Powell. Not to mention the State Dept ran on fax machine until 2001
2 - She took Wall St Money. - Again, globalization is happening and what is the problem with that?

Don't sound to independent to me.

1) He is a business man. He will look at the financial impacts like business people do. He knows like everyone else knows that China has been undervaluing their currency for years. That makes our debt larger. He knows the game.

2) Not sure your point. Or course jobs will continue to go to the cheapest place to manufacture. That is why I am sick of democrats trying to share our wealth. They are constantly trying to get us into global treaties that move our money and workers to third world countries. Ever look at Clinton's support of the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership that would in effect give legal standing to non American companies to make policy and sue American companies for impacts caused by competition on American soil. It is an attempt to circumvent our Congress once again. One analysis predicts America will lose nearly 500,000 jobs. The democrats signed the treaty in Feb of this year.

3) Bush did not try and build a wall. Reagan/ Bush actually gave amnesty to Illegals once.

I am not sure what Trumps bad business record is. New York was a dump in the 1970's before he started doing his thing. That guy owns more property that anyone south of the US government it seems. What people need to realize is Bankruptcy is a business tool just like any other tool. It has rules, regulations and procedures.

On Clinton:
1) If I did what she did with her servers and the information that went on those, I would be in jail. They removed the contract for the University of California from managing the national labs over a lost hard drive (thought I am skeptical that was a ruse).

2) How does a person who was in perpetual public office go from being broke to a mulitmillionaire while making $200,000 a year?

Btw, England just voted to back out of the European Union. Plus one for democracy.....

Originally Posted by doublemwa

Sorry if I wasn't clear so let me clarify. A wakeboard made in the US, lets say a HL, is going to cost 2x as much. So if you had the choice based on price, would you pay 2x as much to support a product made in the US? Or (hypothetically) would you by a LF who is produced offshore and cost relatively the same as the previous year? So it isn't you have to think about where it was made, the price alone will indicate that. Most models show buying patterns will trend towards relative quality & price. However, when you zoom in on buyers who pay more for local products, they buy less often. Which slows the velocity of money which further reduces buying power down the line.

So if the US does not allow the products in what is the alternative? What do you mean when you say the govt replenishes the loss?

As for the reality of exporting how do you explain employers such as Apple or Walmart? They manufacture in China but both are a huge domestic economic driver.

Apple and Walmart are huge domestic STOCK drivers. dirty little secret. If stock does not do well, none of us retire.

Apple and Walmart have store fronts that do employee people I give you that, however those are not high paying jobs. I take that back. Apple does write code and does first line hardware development.

It is more along the lines of America's service based industry model. We seem to make our money at video games, movies, some software, Disney Land, Credit Cards and printing the worlds money.

Your velocity of money thing does no good if the money spent immediately leaves the country. Once it leaves it does not exist in the local economy. The guy who sells the product is most likely going to see the same profit margin so they get hurt by lack of sales by high cost items. The manufacturers are going to sell for what the market will take. Though they can sell for cheap due to slave labor, they don't and it is bad business if they do sell cheap. If you have a local guy manufacturing, he will have low profit margins due to regulation, labor costs and taxes. He has to sell to what the market will take. The Chinese guy will move their prices to just under the American guy to provide the cheaper alternative while maximizing profit. The Chinese guy will ultimately make a choice. Undercut the local guy and run him out of business or they will give an offer the local guy can not refuse and take over the good name of the local guy. Win win for the Chinese.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

On Clinton:
1) If I did what she did with her servers and the information that went on those, I would be in jail. They removed the contract for the University of California from managing the national labs over a lost hard drive (thought I am skeptical that was a ruse).

No. You wouldn't. Petraeus did much worse and was actually found guilty of wrongdoing and got probation. Soooooooo: banghead:: banghead:: banghead:

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

No. You wouldn't. Petraeus did much worse and was actually found guilty of wrongdoing and got probation. Soooooooo: banghead:: banghead:: banghead:

Uh....I have paperwork that says I would.

Petraeus was a war hero for lack of a better term. You would be in prison.

Like Chris Rock said, if OJ was a bus driver, he would be OJ the murdering bus driver. Money and position have everything to do with it.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Don't sound to independent to me.



3) Bush did not try and build a wall. Reagan/ Bush actually gave amnesty to Illegals once.

I am not sure what Trumps bad business record is. New York was a dump in the 1970's before he started doing his thing. That guy owns more property that anyone south of the US government it seems. What people need to realize is Bankruptcy is a business tool just like any other tool. It has rules, regulations and procedures.

On Clinton:
1) If I did what she did with her servers and the information that went on those, I would be in jail. They removed the contract for the University of California from managing the national labs over a lost hard drive (thought I am skeptical that was a ruse).

2) How does a person who was in perpetual public office go from being broke to a mulitmillionaire while making $200,000 a year?

Why does everyone not remember the Secure Fence act of 2006 (typo earlier I meant JR)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

For #2, I would say taking a 200K salary and making it into Millions is just good business. Unlike your man Trump who's current wealth still equals his original inheritance. Not to mention his campaign was nearly broke until this weeks fundraising. He lost his casinos on the simple fact he took on TONS bad debt that he couldn't repay.

http://gawker.com/a-complete-list-of...ers-1764151188

Bankruptcy might be a tool, but its hardly ethical. If I hired you to do a job that required you to invest in and later filed bankruptcy before I paid, then where would that leave you?

He also does not really own a lot of real estate. He lease out his name for many of the properties that brand it.

Lastly, I'm sure that even Ted Turner owns more land than Trump.

Can you get anymore clueless or no?

Someone on the campaign needs to keep that moron away from his own Twitter. Of course, his supporters and followers probably have no idea that he got it backwards...

Originally Posted by doublemwa

Why does everyone not remember the Secure Fence act of 2006 (typo earlier I meant JR)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

For #2, I would say taking a 200K salary and making it into Millions is just good business. Unlike your man Trump who's current wealth still equals his original inheritance. Not to mention his campaign was nearly broke until this weeks fundraising. He lost his casinos on the simple fact he took on TONS bad debt that he couldn't repay.

http://gawker.com/a-complete-list-of...ers-1764151188

Bankruptcy might be a tool, but its hardly ethical. If I hired you to do a job that required you to invest in and later filed bankruptcy before I paid, then where would that leave you?

He also does not really own a lot of real estate. He lease out his name for many of the properties that brand it.

Lastly, I'm sure that even Ted Turner owns more land than Trump.

For #2, it would be because she had her pockets lined with contributions and also many deals that boarder on illegal if not purely illegal like her whitewater scandal and the Clinton foundation. No one takes a $200,000 salary and turns it to millions in a decade without a lot of back scratching.

Trump's campaign was broke, but not trump. That is business and write off hand wringing. He has plenty of money and Clinton most likely will outspend him by a serious amount as all those wealthiest of the wealthy democrats put up the money.

YOU say that Trump is only worth what he started with all while screaming for his income tax statement to prove you correct?. You have no idea what he is worth, period. If he is only leasing his name, then he is brilliant. No expenditures, just profit.

List Trumps successes?

What has Hillary done in business? Has she ever ran anything? She is a professional lawyer who started off her career by getting kicked off the Watergate commission because she was too dishonest. She was kicked off by the democrats.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/hil...ical-behavior/

Then with the Stanford swimmer getting off lite on rape we have the little diddy with Clinton defending a rapists and the tactics she used.

https://www.intellihub.com/video-hil...hile-off-hook/

Then you can read up on her verbal abuse of those around her:

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-...-to-work-with/

Clinton and whitewater:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...wwtr960602.htm

Then you have Hillary's support and destruction of Bill's "girlfiends":

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/e...ssault-victim/

Look. Don't come in here speaking about someones ethics. We all know who Hillary is and what she is about. POWER!!! and she will step on anyone to get it and that makes her dangerous.

You want to bring Ethics into this?

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Can you get anymore clueless or no?

You realize that Scotland is part of the UK right? Scotland voted to stay with England, though more Scots voted to stay with the EU, I am sure the people who would support Trump are happy. 38% of the Scots voted to leave.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

Why does everyone not remember the Secure Fence act of 2006 (typo earlier I meant JR)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

For #2, I would say taking a 200K salary and making it into Millions is just good business. Unlike your man Trump who's current wealth still equals his original inheritance. Not to mention his campaign was nearly broke until this weeks fundraising. He lost his casinos on the simple fact he took on TONS bad debt that he couldn't repay.

http://gawker.com/a-complete-list-of...ers-1764151188

Bankruptcy might be a tool, but its hardly ethical. If I hired you to do a job that required you to invest in and later filed bankruptcy before I paid, then where would that leave you?

He also does not really own a lot of real estate. He lease out his name for many of the properties that brand it.

Lastly, I'm sure that even Ted Turner owns more land than Trump.

Also, you said Bush Sr. then pointed to a act during Bush Jr. A good portion of the wall was built and lowered boarder crossings by 18%. Then the illegals found different point where the wall was not built. Democrat controlled congress defunded the effort

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

You realize that Scotland is part of the UK right? Scotland voted to stay with England, though more Scots voted to stay with the EU, I am sure the people who would support Trump are happy. 38% of the Scots voted to leave.

Shaking. My. Damn. Head. I love that you had to add to your post too. Did you even read the tweet?

Trump has effectively taken advantage of bankrupcy. No doubt about it. It's a legal, effective way to work out debt. And he's also been able to get his financiers to eat the loss on many projects. Nothing wrong with that either. In all cases, though, he's been out for himself and not necessarily the greater good. His personal history is one of unabashed self aggrandizement. Serial adulterer, Howard Stern recurring guest, etc.

All of that is totally fine. Just not things that really seem very Presidential. I mean individual BK is totally legal and necessary too. But it'd give me a lot of pause to find out that my personal financial advisor had BK'd or defaulted on his debt obligations, especially if he was bragging about it as if it were a badge of honor.

again, I'm not necessarily a Trump supporter....but....
I find it humorous that his lack of morality is even an issue. They all suck.
a Kennedy and Chappaquiddick, and Bill confirmed lying under oath to congress about a BJ

there are many other examples
I wish they would just talk policy. Leave morality out of it. We will probably never have a politician that's morally good enough ...

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Shaking. My. Damn. Head. I love that you had to add to your post too. Did you even read the tweet?

Yep. Read the tweet. Looks fine to me. They are taking it back from the EU. It is a guy on the campaign trail, so what?

You odd sense of indication is needless. You are not any smarter than anyone else so you can stop with the head shaking and head banging BS. You started this account this month, you have no standing here.

I don't think having an account on wakeworld gets you into any political circles in the world so the time of my account creation is irrelevant. But props to you for being on a wakeboard site this long(whatever that does for you).

Scotland voted to remain. Are you missing that or what?

Are you missing that Scotland still had 38% voted to go. Scotland voted to stay in the UK. The UK voted to go.

You are applying a lot of context to a simple tweet. Our biases tell the story of all the things that we wanted to apply to the tweet. It is your story so you tell it, but don't be shocked when others don't apply the same bias to the tweet as you do.

Not having an account on wakeworld does not give one special standing however don't come in here banging your head treating me like I am some sort of idiot if only your superior intellect could only reach me.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

I don't think having an account on wakeworld gets you into any political circles in the world so the time of my account creation is irrelevant. But props to you for being on a wakeboard site this long(whatever that does for you).

Scotland voted to remain. Are you missing that or what?

You will be beating your head against the wall if you try to rationalize with Delta.

It's funny that the people who scream corruption the loudest about Hillary are throwing their support behind the guy who has all the earmarks of a shyster.

Originally Posted by magicr

You will be beating your head against the wall if you try to rationalize with Delta.

Just don't see things the liberal way......

Originally Posted by fly135

It's funny that the people who scream corruption the loudest about Hillary are throwing their support behind the guy who has all the earmarks of a shyster.

Trump may have the earmarks but Hillary leaves zero doubt.

Seems it's the other way around. Trump has left a trail of bankruptcies, failed companies, unhappy investors, and lawsuits. There is virtually nothing that you can point to that Hillary has done that isn't characteristic of politics and politicians in general. The only intelligent way to change politics is for the public to know what they want. You shouldn't vote in a loose canon just because that's the only way you know to change things.

38% voted to leave. That is quite the underwhelming amount for a country going crazy to "taaaakeeeee ourrrr countrrryyyyyy baccccckkkk".

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Are you missing that Scotland still had 38% voted to go. Scotland voted to stay in the UK. The UK voted to go.

You are applying a lot of context to a simple tweet. Our biases tell the story of all the things that we wanted to apply to the tweet. It is your story so you tell it, but don't be shocked when others don't apply the same bias to the tweet as you do.

Not having an account on wakeworld does not give one special standing however don't come in here banging your head treating me like I am some sort of idiot if only your superior intellect could only reach me.

If you are that sensitive to a banging head post then you are incredibly sensitive. I have not challenged your intelligence in any way. I feel the banging head post was quite fitting for that situation. It is easy for one to bang their head on a wall while comparing the case of the GOP screaming "Hillary for Prison" while they are saying Petraeus should have a go at the presidency lol.

Speaking of war heros...Trump has a great deal of respect for them does he not?

Originally Posted by fly135

Seems it's the other way around. Trump has left a trail of bankruptcies, failed companies, unhappy investors, and lawsuits. There is virtually nothing that you can point to that Hillary has done that isn't characteristic of politics and politicians in general. The only intelligent way to change politics is for the public to know what they want. You shouldn't vote in a loose canon just because that's the only way you know to change things.

Trump also has thousands of people that are employed by him that are happy to have jobs. It cuts both ways on him. If you are biased by the negative business side, then he is not your guy. I am biased that he knows how to run a business. He knows how to negotiate so maybe we will not hand nukes to some other death to America country like Obama did Iran.

Last time we discounted a funny talking business man who warned us of that giant sucking sound was our jobs heading to mexico, we did not listen. Perot was absolutely correct. Clinton got elected and NAFTA is the norm.

Trump is not my favorite human. I am somewhat anti elitist in general, however he will have to do. Have no choice.

Besides, it is the people that are leaning with you are the ones who seem to be bringing up Trump being unethical, I am just responding.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

If you are that sensitive to a banging head post then you are incredibly sensitive. I have not challenged your intelligence in any way. I feel the banging head post was quite fitting for that situation. It is easy for one to bang their head on a wall while comparing the case of the GOP screaming "Hillary for Prison" while they are saying Petraeus should have a go at the presidency lol.

Speaking of war heros...Trump has a great deal of respect for them does he not?

banging ones head is implying that the other person does not know what they are talking about. That is your opinion. Bring in some facts. I am not slogan running but when the topic comes up about the classified emails I will talk facts. I know for a fact you or I would be in jail right now. I have paper work stating as much.

You seem to pin a lot on the Petraeus did was worse angle. Let's explore that.

From what I am reading he had an affair with someone who is a Lt Col Intelligence Officer that he allowed to see information. Not sure how he compromised the classified info as the whole saga is a long read, however the conclusion was that no data we breached, he seems to have used the correct tools and he still got a 2 years of probation and a fine just for that. His career is over too. How is that worse than Clinton. She set up a server outside the security envelope, appears to have had classified data on it and the Russians have direct access to it.

How is his worse?

Have not heard Petraeus for president speak.

Not sure of Trumps comments on war hero's. Everything I have heard from the left is usually something they said in their context.

No way you can put a left spin on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politi...n-mccain-hero/

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Then the illegals found different point where the wall was not built. Democrat controlled congress defunded the effort

......they found another way in? Isn't that key to why a wall isn't going to do ****? Trump can build a wall & immigrants can dig a hole. Or just do like the other 80% and overstay a legally issued visa.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Trump also has thousands of people that are employed by him that are happy to have jobs. It cuts both ways on him. If you are biased by the negative business side, then he is not your guy. I am biased that he knows how to run a business.

I worked for a guy that reminds me of Trump for many years. He's the only guy I know that's blown approx $70M of other people's money. He made money on every failed endeavour. I made a lot of money too because we were friends and I knew how to deal with him. I watched a lot of people get screwed by him too. It's a personality that I would not trust at all. You may be fooled by him, but I doubt the majority will come voting day.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

......they found another way in? Isn't that key to why a wall isn't going to do ****? Trump can build a wall & immigrants can dig a hole. Or just do like the other 80% and overstay a legally issued visa.

It kept them out until the rope and ladder was invented.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

......they found another way in? Isn't that key to why a wall isn't going to do ****? Trump can build a wall & immigrants can dig a hole. Or just do like the other 80% and overstay a legally issued visa.

No no. If the wall is there then there is absolutely no way they can come in. It's foolproof. You act like you can still just come here on a tourist visa and not leave. Oh wait that's what you said. Nvm.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

No way you can put a left spin on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politi...n-mccain-hero/

Yep. He then clarified the comment. No one says he says the perfect thing all the time.

Just like Clinton's verbal abuse? LOL. Comedy hour here.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

......they found another way in? Isn't that key to why a wall isn't going to do ****? Trump can build a wall & immigrants can dig a hole. Or just do like the other 80% and overstay a legally issued visa.

The wall worked perfectly in the place that it was built. The wall does work of they would not be around prisons. The Chinese built one that was pretty darn effective. Drug cartels use the tunnels so mass immigration would not happen there.

Not sure where you get 80% number from. They need to go as well but Obama wants to keep them all. BTW one of those over extended VISA holders tried to assassinate Trump last week.

So what does the wall have to do with anything. You for illegals? What is your angle?

Originally Posted by fly135

I worked for a guy that reminds me of Trump for many years. He's the only guy I know that's blown approx $70M of other people's money. He made money on every failed endeavour. I made a lot of money too because we were friends and I knew how to deal with him. I watched a lot of people get screwed by him too. It's a personality that I would not trust at all. You may be fooled by him, but I doubt the majority will come voting day.

May be. I am not fooled by him. I wanted Carson or Cruz. I know I don't want another progressive democrat.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Just like Clinton's verbal abuse? LOL. Comedy hour here.

Many links of Hillary degrading people. Many books document it too.

Do democrats have a stronghold on fascists these days? What is with your party. Burned down how many cities? at least 3 dozen mass protests. Bloodied how many Trump supporters? Already had one assassination attempt. Hell, we have not even got to the real campaigns yet.

Pure fascist comedy coming right up I suppose.......

It's a massive waste of money. If people wanted to get to America there is always a way unless we turn Mexico into a Cuba situation. Do you know the cost of a wall?

I don't think you can compare a wall that was effective centuries ago to one now. Look at the Great Wall now. Bunch of no good foreigners all over it with their tourism. Crazy they were able to get over that massive wall to visit it. No clue how they would do it. Even crazier that they could just like...stay.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

It's a massive waste of money. If people wanted to get to America there is always a way unless we turn Mexico into a Cuba situation. Do you know the cost of a wall?

I don't think you can compare a wall that was effective centuries ago to one now. Look at the Great Wall now. Bunch of no good foreigners all over it with their tourism. Crazy they were able to get over that massive wall to visit it. No clue how they would do it. Even crazier that they could just like...stay.

OK, since you obviously think you are smarter than everyone else including the USBP.... What's your solution? Just open the border like Mexico does on its own southern border? Oh wait...

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

OK, since you obviously think you are smarter than everyone else including the USBP.... What's your solution? Just open the border like Mexico does on its own southern border? Oh wait...

More guns is the solution to all the issues.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

It's a massive waste of money. If people wanted to get to America there is always a way unless we turn Mexico into a Cuba situation. Do you know the cost of a wall?

I don't think you can compare a wall that was effective centuries ago to one now. Look at the Great Wall now. Bunch of no good foreigners all over it with their tourism. Crazy they were able to get over that massive wall to visit it. No clue how they would do it. Even crazier that they could just like...stay.

It may be a waste of money. The projection to the link you provided that it was going to cost 4 billion for a several hundred mile section. Jerry Jones built AT&T stadium for the cowboys for 1.2 billion. The new stadium in Atlanta, just the changes alone are $200 million.

I think I am reading that you think they should simply stay?

You have any idea of what it costs California alone for that? As of 2003, it cost over 15 billion a year in social services for illegals. 1/3 of the prison population is illegals who have committed violent crime. That was over a decade ago. The State keeps raising taxes on the people to make up for this shortfall.

On a national level, Money leaving the US economy is the 3rd or 4th top money producer for Mexico. It is over $25 billion a year directly out of our local economy.

Here is a dirty little secret that the democrats are hoping people are not talking about. Those 11 million or so illegals, they get counted in the census. Every 10 years the electoral colleges remaining 435 votes are redistributed based on population. If california's population goes up, they will get more electoral votes. California is dominated by democrats so..... you figure it out.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

More guns is the solution to all the issues.

Yep....just snark. No solutions.....

Originally Posted by fly135

Seems it's the other way around. Trump has left a trail of bankruptcies, failed companies, unhappy investors, and lawsuits. There is virtually nothing that you can point to that Hillary has done that isn't characteristic of politics and politicians in general. The only intelligent way to change politics is for the public to know what they want. You shouldn't vote in a loose canon just because that's the only way you know to change things.

I forgot. You guys voted for Obama just for this reason. He had zero record and literally voted present for a year plus while on the job. He wrote a basic communist manifesto book as well and he was elected simply because he was not Bush or Bush's replacement.

Figured I would leave with that. See you all next week....

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

The wall worked perfectly in the place that it was built. The wall does work of they would not be around prisons. The Chinese built one that was pretty darn effective. Drug cartels use the tunnels so mass immigration would not happen there.

Not sure where you get 80% number from. They need to go as well but Obama wants to keep them all. BTW one of those over extended VISA holders tried to assassinate Trump last week.

So what does the wall have to do with anything. You for illegals? What is your angle?

You do realize that there are prison guards that will shoot anyone that tries to scale a prison wall? I think the fear of being shot is more of a deterrent than the wall itself.