Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#1221033 2016-07-19 12:43 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Lots of angry white people eating a shit sandwich, hee hee.


Fair play!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 19,415
Likes: 8
brother from another mother
15000+ posts
Online Cool
brother from another mother
15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 19,415
Likes: 8
GOP needs to stop pouting about Trump and get behind their guy or Hilltard is going to win.


"My friends have always been the best of me." -Doctor Who

"Well,whenever I'm confused,I just check my underwear. It holds most answers to life's questions." Abe Simpson

I can tell by the position of the sun in the sky, that is time for us to go. Until next time, I am Lothar of the Hill People!
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,843
Likes: 3
Son of Anarchist
15000+ posts
Offline
Son of Anarchist
15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,843
Likes: 3
Lothar enjoys getting behind guys.


Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 19,415
Likes: 8
brother from another mother
15000+ posts
Online Cool
brother from another mother
15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 19,415
Likes: 8
There's nothing gay about politics.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Lol, they stole Michelle Obama's speech for Melania. Who knew that Michelle's speech was so much better delivered by an ex lingerie model and the current old jizz collector for Trump. It brought tears to many of the angry white people.


Fair play!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Poll: Trump Leads Clinton by 11 Points with Independents

Posted for MEM, since he loves him some polls

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Lol, nice cherry picking as usual G-man. Read further and you find that even Brietfart has her ahead. They just buried that part.


Fair play!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
A serious question for the conservative pundits here.

Setting aside the merits or lack thereof to Trump, who would have had the best chance of winning this election for the GOP?

Jeb Bush? Rubio? Mitt Romney?

Jeb seemed a little ineffectual. I like Romney. He has moral fibre, gravitas, and speaks his mind.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves
A serious question for the conservative pundits here.

Setting aside the merits or lack thereof to Trump, who would have had the best chance of winning this election for the GOP?

Jeb Bush? Rubio? Mitt Romney?

Jeb seemed a little ineffectual. I like Romney. He has moral fibre, gravitas, and speaks his mind.


On pure electability probably Rubio. Too bad he let Schumer play him on the gang of eight bill.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


Mike Pence just gave a great speech. Although 1 PM on a Tuesday is an odd time for one of the key players to give such a speech.

I didn't know till now that Pence began his career as a Democrat. He expresses cross-party appeal that could bring independents and Democrats to the Trump side.

I like the faith he expresses in the American people to make the right choice, and invoked Reagan, and that time in 1980 when the American people made the right choice. And how in remarkable modesty, Reagan had said in response to a then-young Mike Pence's gratitude, that Reagan said "I don't believe that I did all this, the American people chose to chart a new course, and just chose me as their captain."

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
The appeal of Donald Trump remains that he is a billionaire. And that doesn't make him out-of-touch, it means that he is one of the few patriots with the financial ability to almost single-handedly stand up to the lobbyist/globalist/corporate/Political Correctness interests that have rigged the system and made it near impossible to stand up to and topple the status quo that is destroying our country from within.


If Trump were just looking for prestige or global stature or enriching himself, he has already had these things many times over. Trump could enrich himself more, and with far less aggravation by not running for president. He has expressed for 30 years that he prefers others to run the country, but has said --again, for 30 years-- that he doesn't want the job, but if others don't stand up to save the country, that he wouldn't rule out the possibility of running.

And at this crucial juncture, where Obama has destroyed our economy, has unnecessarily through Alinsky-trained demagoguery splintered the nation along race and class lines, where literally police are afraid to do their jobs, are being shot in the streets in multiple cities, with resulting mob violence in multiple cities directly inspired by Obama and "Black Lives Matter" false rhetoric. Obama has destroyed our military. Obama is through inaction and timidity enabling chaos in Ukraine, in Syria, in Libya, in Turkey, Iraq, Aghanistan, in Iran, in the South China Sea, in North Korea.
And where an incredibly corrupt Hillary Clinton threatens another 8 years that could destroy the United States, that under these circumstances, Trump feels the responsibility to run.

There are no guarantees that Trump will be a good president. But I see the potential for Trump to be a great president, infinitely better than Hillary Clinton. Frau Hitlery has already demonstrated unprecedented corruption, decades of scandals, and an eagerness to use the IRS and other federal agencies to target her political opposition and conservative Americans.

The opposition that Trump has received, both by Democrats as well as establishment factions within the GOP, manifests what significant change for the better Trump offers, across party lines, for the betterment of the nation.

I look forward to that point being hammered home in GOP speeches during the next few days of this convention.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
I don't think an Oprah interview will undo all the things he's said and done. If the GOP is smart they spend the week trashing Hillary and hope for the best.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

You make it sound like Hillary has some impeccable record, while in truth it is common knowledge she is guilty as sin on all charges.

Trump has a history of success on development projects globally, has no negatives beyond perception.

Whereas Hillary has decades of narrowly escaped criminal charges, and FBI director James Comey already made the case for Republicans not even 2 weeks ago!
In addition to the charges she is clearly guilty of but not prosecuted on regarding her e-mails that have compromised national security, she is also being investigated by 100-plus agents for laws broken through her Clinton Foundation, and for her criminal deception regarding the 2012 Benghazi attack, where she told the presidents of Egypt and Libya, and her daughter Chelsea that it was clearly a terrorist attack in private e-mails, while publicly selling a false narrative to the American people and media.

Then there's Hillary's "war on women" where she led the slander and intimidation to silence Bill Clinton's women who were alternately used sexually, reluctantly harassed, and even raped. That ought to be well received by the American public.

Trump could do one commercial a day attacking Hillary's complete untrustworthiness, and unworthiness to even be a candidate.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


Some good speeches today by Donald Trump Jr., Paul Ryan, and Chris Christie, and Sheriff David Clarke:


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


Donald Trump Jr.:



In my opinion, the most persuasive of the evening.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


Chris Christie, who really lays out that Hillary Clinton, despite not being prosecuted, is unquestionably guilty as hell of all charges. Sourced from the words of FBI director James Comey. The one Comey laid out, but refused to prosecute.
Likewise regarding her tenure as Secretary of State in her handling of Libya, ISIS, Nigeria, "war on women", Islamic radicalism, China, vastly expanded national debt, Syrian genocide, the Iranian nuclear deal that threatens the U.S., the Russian reset failure, freeing cop-killer Joanne Chessimar, and betraying U.S. national security with her illegal private e-mail server, Hillary has betrayed the nation's interests as secretary of state, and is demonstrably unworthy of the presidency.


Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
So you guys are Republican but anti-corporate?

If you are anti-big business then shouldn't you be Democrats? Or at least libertarians?

I'm assuming this means you don't subscribe to Reaganomics / trickle down economics?

Sorry for all the questions but I am trying to understand the perspective. It seems to be a phenomenon evolving from the sentiment of those left behind in globalisation. Some people transitioned - Palo Alto is the big one - and some did not. Those that did not have no new jobs and the system failed them and their families? Probably an element of emasculation in that too: the provider cannot provide and the traditional role of fsther and husband is eroded generating anger and feelings of self-worthlessness.

Then there is the nativism - dark skinned guys from the Middle East are going to rape our women and blow us up. That seems to be a response to 9/11 and over a decade of fighting in Central Asia.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Offline
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230
Likes: 1
Also, do you really think Trump will build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it??


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves
So you guys are Republican but anti-corporate?


I'm pro-business, whether small business or large business. I only oppose corporate lobby influence at the point it gives corporations an unfair advantage that hurts their free-market competition, and where it results in offshoring of jobs that hurts workers, and creates foreign dependency where a dangerous amount of what we produce is brought in from overseas.

 Quote:

If you are anti-big business then shouldn't you be Democrats? Or at least libertarians?

I'm assuming this means you don't subscribe to Reaganomics / trickle down economics?


Read the book OBAMANOMICS by Timothy Carney. It focuses on the lobbyist influence that infests about 80% of both parties. In addition to what I said above, corporations can withstand more regulation with a lower cost per unit. So regulation brought on by Democrat policies actually hurt mid- and small-businesses and drives them out. Thinning companies in the market results in less competition and higher prices.
Also, corporations never pay taxes, they just pass on the additional cost to consumers of their product. Which, despite Democrat rhetoric about making them "pay their fair shair", actually results in having the highest cost to the working and lower classes. So far from Democrat policy rhetoric of helping the little guy, it enriches corporations and hurts the poor.


 Quote:

Sorry for all the questions but I am trying to understand the perspective. It seems to be a phenomenon evolving from the sentiment of those left behind in globalisation. Some people transitioned - Palo Alto is the big one - and some did not. Those that did not have no new jobs and the system failed them and their families? Probably an element of emasculation in that too: the provider cannot provide and the traditional role of fsther and husband is eroded generating anger and feelings of self-worthlessness.


I appreciate the desire to understand my position, and i'm trying to give a clear answer. Yes, I iunderstand that in Germany, they subsidize and encourage business, and pay for re-training of employees with skills in new areas of growth. That doesn't happen in the U.S.
Lobbyists push for policy that is lax on immigration, so corporations can have cheap labor of under-the-table illegal workers. And also push for legal immigration of skilled engineers and other tech workers that work for 50-60% of what U.S. workers earn with the same skills. Both ends displace workers, and create unemployment, even for those with skills. Pat Buchanan talks a lot about this in his columns and books, along with "offshoring" jobs and factories to Mexico and southeast asia for cheaper labor. Buchanan terms this "hollowing out America's industrial base".

Hillary and the Democrats say you're a bigot and xenophobe if you cite these facts.
Likewise the threat of massive Islamic immigration resulting in a rise in terror attacks.

 Quote:

Then there is the nativism - dark skinned guys from the Middle East are going to rape our women and blow us up. That seems to be a response to 9/11 and over a decade of fighting in Central Asia.


I'm not sure what your question is in that last one. Whether Europe, the U.S., or even Turkey or Russia, what you said is pretty much a statement of fact, regarding the result of Islamic immigration.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves
Also, do you really think Trump will build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it??



You could look at videos on YouTube of the Texas border enforcement. Sean Hannity has had several one-hour specials. It doesn't necessarily have to be a wall. It can be helicopters patrolling, electronic sensors, and even drones patrolling.

Regarding Mexico paying for the wall. Trump has basically said that Mexico will pay out of their trade with the U.S., or be deprived of U.S. markets entirely.
The book STATE OF EMERGENCY by Pat Buchanan (2006) explains the details of Mexico's hostility toward the U.S. in how they openly encourage their poor and politically dissatisfied to immigrate (both legally and illegally) so they don't have to pay for social programs for the poor and for education. 1 in 4 Mexicans in the world now lives in the U.S.
And 59% of illegal immigration to the U.S. is from Mexico.
The Mexican government, including former president Vicente Fox, have said they are trying to take back the U.S. demographically, through Mexican immigration.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
 Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves
Then there is the nativism - dark skinned guys from the Middle East are going to rape our women and blow us up. That seems to be a response to 9/11 and over a decade of fighting in Central Asia.


What are you talking about?

It's a response to dark, smelly migrants raping our women and blowing us up. No one's even mentiond 9/11.

Have you just been doing your hardest to bury your head in the sand while Sweden, Britain, France, and Germany become the rape capitals of Europe while the influx of Muslim aliens gets worse?

Perhaps you should move from Australia--where your leaders have been smartly keeping migrants out--and resettle in Sweden or Germany. See what happens to you and your family before chalking it up to "Nativism".

 Originally Posted By: First Amongst Daves
Also, do you really think Trump will build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it??


All of a Latin America is responisible for funneling over 22 billion dollars a year from the US. Mexico is the chief culprit of this leeching behavior.

In which case, we don't need to compel them to write any checks to get reimbursement for the wall. Trump has already brought up the possibility of ceasing remittances and limiting--if not stopping outright--the export of dollars out of the US to Mexico.

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
You could look at videos on YouTube of the Texas border enforcement. Sean Hannity has had several one-hour specials. It doesn't necessarily have to be a wall. It can be helicopters patrolling, electronic sensors, and even drones patrolling.


Indeed. A wall does not simply consist of material. For instance, up until the turn of the 20th century, the Southern border was a permanent duty station for the army--Buffalo soldiers in particular.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
I was curious what Ted Cruz was going to say tonight after Trump said horrible things about his dad and wife. He didn't disappoint. Nor did the Trump supporters. He told voters to vote their conscience and they booed him.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

Like the liberal news networks, you focus entirely on Ted Cruz not giving his worthless endorsement to Trump, as a way to completely eclipse the larger success and message (and rise in the polls) of Trump.


Cruz has a grudge against Trump because Trump RESPONDED with a photo of Cruz's wife, AFTER Cruz previously posted photos of Trump's wife, basically calling Trump's wife a whore.
Gee, why would Trump get upset and attack Cruz?
A one-sided media (and partisan Democrat Left) focuses entirely on what Trump said about Cruz's wife, while ignoring what solicited Trump's action.

If I recall, this is also about the time Cruz's wife was outed as a lobbyist, at precisely the time Ted Cruz was railing on Washington lobbyists. So he was literally in bed every night with the kind of lobbyist he vowed to oppose!

In the case of the National Enquirer story about Ted Cruz's father, Trump did not create that allegation, he MERELY MENTIONED what was already just published in the Enquirer. When asked, Trump said that the Inquirer has been right about stories such as the John Edwards extramarital affair, and presumably has sources to back its story about the Cruz's father/Oswald connection story.

I don't see where Trump committed any unforgivable action. And it was Cruz who fired the first salvo at Trump's wife.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29

 Originally Posted By: Pariah
All of a Latin America is responisible for funneling over 22 billion dollars a year from the US. Mexico is the chief culprit of this leeching behavior.

In which case, we don't need to compel them to write any checks to get reimbursement for the wall. Trump has already brought up the possibility of ceasing remittances and limiting--if not stopping outright--the export of dollars out of the US to Mexico.


I believe you're talking only about trade. And I don't question what you say regarding that. In the past, Mexico and other nations would pay a tariff to export to sell in the U.S.
Having Mexico pay to build a wall would essentially be a small tariff (relative to Mexico's net profit) in order to continue to do business in the U.S.

But something you didn't mention is: the two largest sources of revenue in Mexico are 1) the Mexican oil industry, and 2) wire transfers by Mexicans in the U.S. to family members in Mexico. A shutdown of those two streams of income would bring Mexico to its knees very quickly.



Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Negative. I was talking about Mexicans wiring money to family members as well. That accounts for billions of dollars.

The idea has, in the past, been floated by his campaign to make illegal the flow of non-commerce-based cash from the US to Mexico.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
So money somebody earned legally would have extra strings attached based on their ethnicity decided by the government?


Fair play!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Like the liberal news networks, you focus entirely on Ted Cruz not giving his worthless endorsement to Trump, as a way to completely eclipse the larger success and message (and rise in the polls) of Trump.


Cruz has a grudge against Trump because Trump RESPONDED with a photo of Cruz's wife, AFTER Cruz previously posted photos of Trump's wife, basically calling Trump's wife a whore.
Gee, why would Trump get upset and attack Cruz?
A one-sided media (and partisan Democrat Left) focuses entirely on what Trump said about Cruz's wife, while ignoring what solicited Trump's action.

If I recall, this is also about the time Cruz's wife was outed as a lobbyist, at precisely the time Ted Cruz was railing on Washington lobbyists. So he was literally in bed every night with the kind of lobbyist he vowed to oppose!

In the case of the National Enquirer story about Ted Cruz's father, Trump did not create that allegation, he MERELY MENTIONED what was already just published in the Enquirer. When asked, Trump said that the Inquirer has been right about stories such as the John Edwards extramarital affair, and presumably has sources to back its story about the Cruz's father/Oswald connection story.

I don't see where Trump committed any unforgivable action. And it was Cruz who fired the first salvo at Trump's wife.


It's not surprising that you rationalized Trump's actions that show his low character. Cruz didn't attack Trump's wife but a superpac did send out a picture she willingly posed for. Maybe in your eyes that makes her a whore? That doesn't excuse Trump for what he did. While I enjoy the circular firing squad Cruz would have shown how little character he had if he actually went on too endorse Trump. I suspect you will be fine with Cruz in 4 more years, lol


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


That was a nice MediaMatters distorted spin of the truth I wrote in my above post. You guys like to tweak the truth and bend it into the mold you want it to conform to. The fact is, the Cruz camp took a modeling photo of Trump's wife and wrote something highly provocative. Trump didn't just, in a vacuum, say something offensive about Cruz's wife. He returned fire in a proportionate manner. But you'll lie forever about the actual circumstances.


But back on the subject of the Republican convention, here's Newt Gingrich's convention speech, concisely eviscerating Frau Hitlery with the facts.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29


I was busy when the GOP convention ended, but this topic wouldn't be complete without Donald Trump's convention speech:



Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5