Trump's Threat

[Guest]

In a recent interview with The Hill, Donald Trump said the Republican National Party has not been supportive of him. Trump suggested he might run as a third party candidate

Wouldn't this basically split the Republicans into two factions and the Democratic candidate would have a major advantage?

[Guest]

Isn't that how we got Clinton the first time? Compliments of Ross Perot.

[Guest]

Some pundits are suggesting that if Trump runs as a third party candidate and takes his supporters with him, republicans will only get about 30% of the vote.

It's hard to see what their winning strategy is when they alienate Hispanics (17% of the population), alienate African Americans (13% of the population), alienate women (53 % of the population), alienate Muslims, alienate the LGBT community, alienate young people.

There just are not enough old white people in the Party Of Old People to win an election going forward.

[Guest]

Isn't that how we got Clinton the first time? Compliments of Ross Perot.

Isn't that how we got W the first time? Compliments of Ralph Nader.

[Guest]

Boy, the PARTY BEFORE ANYTHING people are out, calling people names (old white, etc.) throwing out the generalities.....Trump said and make that THEY said.

You folks should be on here telling all why they should vote for your candidate...the OLD WHITE RICH woman, or the communist, or the guy who apologized for saying that ALL people matter.

But certain people feel this is how to do it. I am surely not a Trump supporter but if he has you PARTY BEFORE ALL out demonizing him already, must be a bit of fear. Again, pay attention to the rich, old white woman, the commie or the guy who actually apologized to the black demonstrators for caring about white people.

Take one

[Guest]

Some pundits are suggesting that if Trump runs as a third party candidate and takes his supporters with him, republicans will only get about 30% of the vote.

It's hard to see what their winning strategy is when they alienate Hispanics (17% of the population), alienate African Americans (13% of the population), alienate women (53 % of the population), alienate Muslims, alienate the LGBT community, alienate young people.

There just are not enough old white people in the Party Of Old People to win an election going forward.

You are nothing but a name calling nasty disrespectful COWARD.

In addition it is obvious you suffer from serious something or other.

We know you don't care.

Do you carry an over sized key board when you go out in public to hide behind as well?

[Guest]

You are nothing but a name calling nasty disrespectful COWARD.

In addition it is obvious you suffer from serious something or other.

We know you don't care.

Do you carry an over sized key board when you go out in public to hide behind as well?

Let's see, if I read post 2 correctly, the childish game of word play was chosen by your lite band of merry men and woman, and not me.

Discuss seriously, and you get serious responses. Begin the flaming....

Oh, and thanks for your concern, but doing pretty good myself. And if anyone cares, it is me, so discuss without the flaming and all is good.

[Guest]

Isn't that how we got W the first time? Compliments of Ralph Nader.


Good one...

[Guest]

I do not believe Republicans have alienated blacks. The democrats have simply done a better job of convincing them to vote democratic. What is inexplicable is that this behavior goes against their own best interests in many cases. Thomas Sowell, a black, does an excellent job of explaining this.


Some pundits are suggesting that if Trump runs as a third party candidate and takes his supporters with him, republicans will only get about 30% of the vote.

It's hard to see what their winning strategy is when they alienate Hispanics (17% of the population), alienate African Americans (13% of the population), alienate women (53 % of the population), alienate Muslims, alienate the LGBT community, alienate young people.

There just are not enough old white people in the Party Of Old People to win an election going forward.

[Guest]

I like Trump, can't wait for the debates.

[Guest]

I do not believe Republicans have alienated blacks. The democrats have simply done a better job of convincing them to vote democratic. What is inexplicable is that this behavior goes against their own best interests in many cases. Thomas Sowell, a black, does an excellent job of explaining this.

Here is the deal.

The democratic party NEEDS to have all Republicans under this one umbrella.

They need to paint, as you see so much on TOTV, ALL Republicans as OLD, RICH, RACIST, BIGOTED. It is imperative to their message.

It began in 2008, and that you can look back and see. It is the picture they must paint of ALL Republicans.

Now the Republicans are not much better. They want to paint all Democrats as free spending. and a hero to the little guy and enemy of the rich. That does not work either because as a party it is just not true.

Both parties have people who believe in many similar things.

What I see as the party differences is simple. The RULE OF LAW. Republicans want to hold on to that and the Democrats do not. For me, I see it as that simple. Go down the list of issues facing us and you can see that permeates through all of them.

[Guest]

How can anyone justify that Republicans haven't aliened blacks? Take a look at all the states that have issued tougher voter ID laws? They are almost all controlled by Republican governors, and houses. There is not a lot for fraud going on in these states. The laws are aimed directly at blacks. The house leader in Penn. came out and said the new voter id laws just gave Penn. to Romney. His own words were used against him to delay or stop the Penn. voter id laws.

I will go look for Robert Sowell article. I sure you know what blacks call him.

Concerning Trump, if his poll numbers take a real dip, any sane person wouldn't think of running for president. The key word there is sane. He can always justify in his own mind that the national Republican leaders not only didn't support him, but turned against him. If you have noticed, the man thinks that he can do no wrong. He is under some strange impression that presidents can do whatever they please, and are answerable to no one but himself. In our current state of divided government, the last thing that we need is a supreme leader.

[Guest]

Here is the deal.

The democratic party NEEDS to have all Republicans under this one umbrella.

They need to paint, as you see so much on TOTV, ALL Republicans as OLD, RICH, RACIST, BIGOTED. It is imperative to their message.

It began in 2008, and that you can look back and see. It is the picture they must paint of ALL Republicans.

Now the Republicans are not much better. They want to paint all Democrats as free spending. and a hero to the little guy and enemy of the rich. That does not work either because as a party it is just not true.

Both parties have people who believe in many similar things.

What I see as the party differences is simple. The RULE OF LAW. Republicans want to hold on to that and the Democrats do not. For me, I see it as that simple. Go down the list of issues facing us and you can see that permeates through all of them.

The democrats didn't paint this picture of republicans. Republicans painted it of themselves with policies too numerous to mention against every minority and women.

One only has to look at the results of the 2012 election when republicans lost 95% of the black vote, 75% of the Hispanic vote, and 60% of the women's vote. Until they change their policies, it will be impossible to win a national election.

[Guest]

Trump is under some strange impression that presidents can do whatever they please, and are answerable to no one but himself. In our current state of divided government, the last thing that we need is a supreme leader.



It sounds as though Trump wants people to believe he, as President, will be able to act as though he was on Celebrity Apprentice and tell anyone in government (Congressman, judge, or employee) "You're Fired".

Sorry, Donald, it doesn't work like that!

[Guest]

How can anyone justify that Republicans haven't aliened blacks? Take a look at all the states that have issued tougher voter ID laws? They are almost all controlled by Republican governors, and houses. There is not a lot for fraud going on in these states. The laws are aimed directly at blacks. The house leader in Penn. came out and said the new voter id laws just gave Penn. to Romney. His own words were used against him to delay or stop the Penn. voter id laws.

I will go look for Robert Sowell article. I sure you know what blacks call him.

Concerning Trump, if his poll numbers take a real dip, any sane person wouldn't think of running for president. The key word there is sane. He can always justify in his own mind that the national Republican leaders not only didn't support him, but turned against him. If you have noticed, the man thinks that he can do no wrong. He is under some strange impression that presidents can do whatever they please, and are answerable to no one but himself. In our current state of divided government, the last thing that we need is a supreme leader.

I sure see the same situation in an entirely different light and I think your position is racist.

Any law on voter ID is for WHITE AND BLACK....not just black as some try to make it appear. This is 2015, not the 40's or even the 60's or 80's. Recognizing that there is attempted fraud, and unknown figures on actual fraud, and that the country is over loaded with illegal immigrants, it stands to reason to have tough laws to administer our right to vote. It is not racist unless you want it to be it seems to me.

You need id for cigarettes...you need id for so many things today that it is reasonable to ask for an id to vote.

You can twist it anyway you want.....make it any thing you want and that is the problem. That twisting to once again apply a label.

I REALLY believe that your position and that of most democrats is the VERY racist position and I think they insult black people with this kind of dialogue.

[Guest]

I might add on this subject, I detest the charge of racism especially when voiced in politics. It is terrible and in most cases used not in the proper context.

The Democratic Party was founded on racism, but they never mention that and thankfully neither do the Republicans.

I recall as current as 1954 when Brown was decided the Democratic governors were the ones who refused to open the schools. Republicans fought hard for that.

Today....While Republicans support school choice policies, which promote vouchers and charter schools, enabling kids to escape education prisons, Democrats oppose these policies and support teachers unions instead.

Even the recent comments by Harry Reid concerning the President, or Joe Biden about the President are indicative of TRUE feelings coming to the fore.

If anyone wants there are a number of quotes, etc to support all of this.

The charge of racism by the Democratic party is a sham and they do a serious injustice to the blacks of this country. The current leaders of civil rights (Sharpton, etc) are a total disgrace and MLK would be loathe to even stand beside them and his widow and family has said so on a number of instances.

NO, all that is happening is that the Democratic party has played this role and done a great job at it, but it is a POLITICAL CHARGE with no merit whatsoever.

[Guest]

By the way, my favorite of the quotes by Democrats is Joe Biden.....speaking of our President.....

"“I mean you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.”

Now we have read on TOTV about Hillary Clintons infamous statements on that Snopes site that called all the charges 1/2 true. 1/2 of those quotes are terrible.

These are people who the Democrats speak of as President of our country who use this language.

Another guy, O'Malley, apologized to the black protesters for saying that ALL lives matter. As far as I am concerned that is insulting to blacks mostly as most blacks do not believe that only black lives matter.

[Guest]

I hated when the media referred to Obama as the black president.

[Guest]

A few more notes for those holier than thou progressives about racism....

"The Democratic Party has been stellar at spinning a revisionist history where the righteous among their ranks fought “tirelessly” to further the cause of Civil Rights, women’s rights – indeed human rights – throughout time immemorial.

In fairness, progressives have had one lynchpin to their argument: Then-President Lyndon B. Johnson did sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The fact that the crux of the bill was drafted and pushed through Congress by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen, and the fact that LBJ staunchly opposed the passing of Civil Rights legislation in the decades leading up to his presidency, bears little relevance on the left’s present-day narrative."

Now I think that most of the Villagers who are professing progressive ideas were alive at this time....they MUST know this, don't they ? The Democrats have just been good at managing the black vote.

Oh, I mentioned a few difficult racist comments made by Democrats over the years...this is a classic by Lyndon Johnson...in discussions before the civil rights bill......

"“Get ready to take up the Goddamned nigra bill again,”

That quote has stuck with me over the years. All the while being called a racist by his party !!!

Why Did the Black Community Leave the GOP for the Democratic Party? | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/)

The Democrats have done a good job in managing this group, and in order to keep the votes they have had to push further left away from the LAW.

[Guest]

You may call it whatever you really want - but the GOP is not the party of choice for most AfricanAmericans. There are some like Sowell or Malkin who are Republican but most are not and will vote Democratic.

You do not have to say Progressive or Socialist but just call all of us Liberal and you also may call us The People's Choice.

Oh, I hope Trump runs independently. It would be a runaway victory for The People's Choice!!

[Guest]

I am being blocked by the administrator.

[Guest]

You may call it whatever you really want - but the GOP is not the party of choice for most AfricanAmericans. There are some like Sowell or Malkin who are Republican but most are not and will vote Democratic.

You do not have to say Progressive or Socialist but just call all of us Liberal and you also may call us The People's Choice.

Oh, I hope Trump runs independently. It would be a runaway victory for The People's Choice!!

I agree with you..how is that ????

I realize that WINNING is everything no doubt. There were some accusations made on here that have been responded to and you offered NOTHING on them but I agree with you, The Republicans are not going to win the African American vote...they are not even trying, which is a good thing. Winning elections based on issues and not the color of skin is a good thing to me.

I did not mean to call you any names......those are names used by folks on TOTV and in the media....labels suck.

Now, if you feel Hillary Clinton is the Peoples choice as you call her, lets hear why ? And you are also right, if all continues as it is, the Democrats will run away with the election if Trump is indepdendt but the race is over a year away and by the way, Hillary has not secured the nomination as much as everybody is trying to give it to her.

I, frankly am happy that one party is not TRYING to make your skin color something that gets votes. I prefer...using one thing only in that area...THE LAW.....that is what we should stand on and not the color of your skin EVER.

I, just me, want nobody elected because they appealed to someones skin color. I believe we should make laws for everyone.

Now that I have agreed with you on some points, maybe we can call off the dogs on the generalizations about all Republicans being old white racists. We know by facts that is not true but I guess it makes you folks happy. LETS TEAR DOWN THOSE STATUES AT ARKANSAS U. LETS TAKE THE MEDALS BACK THAT CLINTON GAVE OUT. Of course I am being sarcastic....problem is the movement is that kind of rhetoric.

RACE should never be a basis for soliciting votes and doing that, to me is what racism is.

[Guest]

One quote that Lyndon Johnson also said about the 1964 Civil Rights law, "We just lost the south for the next 40 years." I get the unmistakable impression that Democrat's position on any matter can't change over time. Which is total nonsense. The Republicans keep trying to tie Hillary, or Obama to their college days.

The Democrat party was founded on racism. Who cares what happened over a hundred years ago? Lincoln was a Republican. When he was elected president, the South seceded. Now the South is firmly Republican. So, the Republicans are never tied into their past, but the Democrats can never escape their past unless, of course, they change their party affiliation.

You need an ID to buy cigarettes, but you can walk to the corner store to buy cigarettes. If you look over 21, they probably won't asked you for an id. Is someone here going to deny many blacks don't live in the inner city, and don't own a car? Drivers license is the one of the id most used on the voting day.

The voter ids laws don't target blacks. Fine. Then, someone please explain the quote that the Penn. house leader made about the id law giving Penn. to Romney. I didn't see anyone address that at all. While we are at it explain the house make up in 2012 in Penn. The state went to President Obama; therefore, he won the popular vote. The House make up was nine Republicans, and three Democrats. The logical conclusion is the President Obama overwhelming won the black vote in the cities. The Penn. house knew this was a going to happen. So, they tried to make it hard as possible for blacks to get a suitable id for voting purposes. Thereby, giving the state to Romney.

I think when you call Democrats and myself racist, you should take a good look in the mirror, and you will see a real racist. Al Sharpton is the worse spokesmen for the blacks. He is the king of bigots. I can't believe MSNBC has given him a program on their station.

You laugh, when Democrats make fun of President Obama, but everything Republicans have called him is perfectly fine. President Obama doesn't like whites (goodbye Glenn Beck). Trump spends money to check his birth certificate. How many birthers are still out there? Obama is a Communist, Kenyan, Muslim, socialist, dictator wannabe, liar, liar, liar, liar, and arrogant fool. Oh, did I mention that he is a liar.

For the life of me, I can't believe people here dismiss the targeting of inner city blacks so easily. Then, call people that bring it up racists. One more time, people here are driving down a lovely one way street with blinders on.

[Guest]

The post above was the one that was initially blocked. Maybe somebody was trying to tell me something. The tax id laws are not targeting blacks. I can accept that. They are targeting voters that vote Democrat in large numbers. So, the Constitution that the Republicans hold near and dear to their hearts is subject to interpretation. One man one vote doesn't apply, if it means they have little to no chance in winning election by the rules.

[Guest]

One quote that Lyndon Johnson also said about the 1964 Civil Rights law, "We just lost the south for the next 40 years." I get the unmistakable impression that Democrat's position on any matter can't change over time. Which is total nonsense. The Republicans keep trying to tie Hillary, or Obama to their college days.

The Democrat party was founded on racism. Who cares what happened over a hundred years ago? Lincoln was a Republican. When he was elected president, the South seceded. Now the South is firmly Republican. So, the Republicans are never tied into their past, but the Democrats can never escape their past unless, of course, they change their party affiliation.

You need an ID to buy cigarettes, but you can walk to the corner store to buy cigarettes. If you look over 21, they probably won't asked you for an id. Is someone here going to deny many blacks don't live in the inner city, and don't own a car? Drivers license is the one of the id most used on the voting day.

The voter ids laws don't target blacks. Fine. Then, someone please explain the quote that the Penn. house leader made about the id law giving Penn. to Romney. I didn't see anyone address that at all. While we are at it explain the house make up in 2012 in Penn. The state went to President Obama; therefore, he won the popular vote. The House make up was nine Republicans, and three Democrats. The logical conclusion is the President Obama overwhelming won the black vote in the cities. The Penn. house knew this was a going to happen. So, they tried to make it hard as possible for blacks to get a suitable id for voting purposes. Thereby, giving the state to Romney.

I think when you call Democrats and myself racist, you should take a good look in the mirror, and you will see a real racist. Al Sharpton is the worse spokesmen for the blacks. He is the king of bigots. I can't believe MSNBC has given him a program on their station.

You laugh, when Democrats make fun of President Obama, but everything Republicans have called him is perfectly fine. President Obama doesn't like whites (goodbye Glenn Beck). Trump spends money to check his birth certificate. How many birthers are still out there? Obama is a Communist, Kenyan, Muslim, socialist, dictator wannabe, liar, liar, liar, liar, and arrogant fool. Oh, did I mention that he is a liar.

For the life of me, I can't believe people here dismiss the targeting of inner city blacks so easily. Then, call people that bring it up racists. One more time, people here are driving down a lovely one way street with blinders on.

You misunderstand all the posts that you are replying to.

All of the history of the Democratic party, etc is IN RESPONSE to the entire Republican party being called racist over and over.

The hypocrisy of that name calling is the motive for the posts, nothing else.

[Guest]

I agree with you..how is that ????

I realize that WINNING is everything no doubt. There were some accusations made on here that have been responded to and you offered NOTHING on them but I agree with you, The Republicans are not going to win the African American vote...they are not even trying, which is a good thing. Winning elections based on issues and not the color of skin is a good thing to me.

I did not mean to call you any names......those are names used by folks on TOTV and in the media....labels suck.

Now, if you feel Hillary Clinton is the Peoples choice as you call her, lets hear why ? And you are also right, if all continues as it is, the Democrats will run away with the election if Trump is indepdendt but the race is over a year away and by the way, Hillary has not secured the nomination as much as everybody is trying to give it to her.

I, frankly am happy that one party is not TRYING to make your skin color something that gets votes. I prefer...using one thing only in that area...THE LAW.....that is what we should stand on and not the color of your skin EVER.

I, just me, want nobody elected because they appealed to someones skin color. I believe we should make laws for everyone.

Now that I have agreed with you on some points, maybe we can call off the dogs on the generalizations about all Republicans being old white racists. We know by facts that is not true but I guess it makes you folks happy. LETS TEAR DOWN THOSE STATUES AT ARKANSAS U. LETS TAKE THE MEDALS BACK THAT CLINTON GAVE OUT. Of course I am being sarcastic....problem is the movement is that kind of rhetoric.

RACE should never be a basis for soliciting votes and doing that, to me is what racism is.


If you re-read my post, I did not say that Hillary Clinton was The People's Choice. I stated that Trump would split the votes in the Republican Party so that a win would be guaranteed for the Democratic candidate.
As far as "old white racists", I haven't used phrases like that in over a month - just as I stated on the other site. I have seen them posted but it is not me.

The GOP has not done a good job of being inclusive of minority people and this has turned many away. If the GOP knows they have to have more minority voters, be more inclusive in drawing them in.

[Guest]

There just are not enough old white people in the Party Of Old People to win an election going forward.

Ah yes, the liberal racist who enjoys playing his golf game in sand traps strikes again ... pathetic, mean-spirited and genuinely disgusting as ever. But hey, when you look up and still see the gutter, we know where you're coming from ... best regards :)

[Guest]

If you re-read my post, I did not say that Hillary Clinton was The People's Choice. I stated that Trump would split the votes in the Republican Party so that a win would be guaranteed for the Democratic candidate.
As far as "old white racists", I haven't used phrases like that in over a month - just as I stated on the other site. I have seen them posted but it is not me.

The GOP has not done a good job of being inclusive of minority people and this has turned many away. If the GOP knows they have to have more minority voters, be more inclusive in drawing them in.

"Over a month" ? How proud you must be.

[Guest]

I misunderstood "all" the posts that I was referring to. "All" is an absolute. So, I am not a racist as someone was quick to point out. I am a moron. Now, that is precious. lol

The tax id laws are for both BLACKS AND WHITES. If that is the case, why didn't anyone answer my question about Penn. id laws, that were delayed or reversed by a judge? What! The Penn. House leader was only joking, when he said that they just gave Penn. to Romney. Guilt by Silence. You couldn't answer the question, because there was only one answer to the question, inner city blacks were the target of Penn. new id law. Period the end.

So, I misunderstood the statements about Al Sharpton; therefore, my statements about Al are misguided. Republicans do actually like Al. Well, they have a really funny way of showing it. "All" the posts. Seriously.

"All" of the history of the Democrat party is they call Republicans racist. Someone was quick to point out the Democrat party was started by Southern racists. If that was the case, all Republicans should have flocked to the Democrats from day one. Two peas in a pod.

No! The motive of the posts was to ignore reality. Never ever, listen to someone of the other party, because it is a sign of weakness. The new voter id laws are directed against blacks. You can't argue otherwise. Unless! Maybe just maybe someone should have thrown out there that the new tax id laws were directed against people that have a history for not voting for them. It is a lot easier to stop them from voting than it is to address their needs. Stopping voter fraud was the selling point to convince themselves, and their followers that they were doing the right thing with the new voter id laws. That is not too hard to understand.

[Guest]

I misunderstood "all" the posts that I was referring to. "All" is an absolute. So, I am not a racist as someone was quick to point out. I am a moron. Now, that is precious. lol

The tax id laws are for both BLACKS AND WHITES. If that is the case, why didn't anyone answer my question about Penn. id laws, that were delayed or reversed by a judge? What! The Penn. House leader was only joking, when he said that they just gave Penn. to Romney. Guilt by Silence. You couldn't answer the question, because there was only one answer to the question, inner city blacks were the target of Penn. new id law. Period the end.

So, I misunderstood the statements about Al Sharpton; therefore, my statements about Al are misguided. Republicans do actually like Al. Well, they have a really funny way of showing it. "All" the posts. Seriously.

"All" of the history of the Democrat party is they call Republicans racist. Someone was quick to point out the Democrat party was started by Southern racists. If that was the case, all Republicans should have flocked to the Democrats from day one. Two peas in a pod.

No! The motive of the posts was to ignore reality. Never ever, listen to someone of the other party, because it is a sign of weakness. The new voter id laws are directed against blacks. You can't argue otherwise. Unless! Maybe just maybe someone should have thrown out there that the new tax id laws were directed against people that have a history for not voting for them. It is a lot easier to stop them from voting than it is to address their needs. Stopping voter fraud was the selling point to convince themselves, and their followers that they were doing the right thing with the new voter id laws. That is not too hard to understand.

Stopping voter fraud had not been a big issue in the past few decades until a black man ran for president. These voter ID laws put in place by various states certainly backfired big time against them as Barack Obama won two back-to-back landslide victories. Nothing drives voters to the polls more than being told that they are not welcome.

How are republicans going to keep women from voting in the 2016 election? Will they try to repeal the 19th amendment?

[Guest]

Stopping voter fraud had not been a big issue in the past few decades until a black man ran for president. These voter ID laws put in place by various states certainly backfired big time against them as Barack Obama won two back-to-back landslide victories. Nothing drives voters to the polls more than being told that they are not welcome.

How are republicans going to keep women from voting in the 2016 election? Will they try to repeal the 19th amendment?

Ah yes the claims of success.....post game that is.

A bunch of people running around shooting arrows into a wall....runnung up and painting a bulls eye around the arrow....then puffing up and claiming to be the most accurate shooters in the game.......

Such a joke....that too many accept.....

[Guest]

I do agree with your post. One small point, it was President Obama run for reelection that brought out the voter fraud nonsense. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down pre-election clearance for changes in voter law changes in 9 states. Five of these states almost immediately went for the voter id change. The Supreme Court said the federal government could challenge vote id changes in any state in court, which they are doing.

How are they to stop women from voting in 2016? Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Trey Gowdy's prosecution oops! "fair and balance" hearings into Benghazi is designed to stop Hillary from receiving the Democrat nomination. If she is not there, they don't have to worry about stopping women from voting. We all know that women are so stupid that they won't vote based upon issues. They vote based on gender. I going to pay from that wise crack.

Wasn't Trey Gowdy's prosecution delayed two or three months so the Republican dominated members of the hearing could gather all the facts before starting? It started just in time to try to effect the 2014 election. Surprise! Surprise! The prosecution intends to bring Hillary before them to answer questions. They are just going to wait until they have all their facts straight before calling her. That should be about September, 2016. Nice quick "fair and balanced" prosecution. Nothing will be leaked to the press to make Hillary bad. That is so un-American.

[Guest]

You are wrong about the arrows. When qualifying with a 45 hand gun in the National Guard, you had to qualify from 25 yards. If you hit the target from 25 yards, they call you Alvin York. When you went up to the target, you poked holes in it with the scorers pencil. Everybody qualified. It wasn't like we were ever going to use a 45. Cheating was a way of life that continues to this day. The National Guard was an equal opportunity employer. It accepted people from both parties, back in the day when getting along with each other was a crime.

[Guest]

You are wrong about the arrows. When qualifying with a 45 hand gun in the National Guard, you had to qualify from 25 yards. If you hit the target from 25 yards, they call you Alvin York. When you went up to the target, you poked holes in it with the scorers pencil. Everybody qualified. It wasn't like we were ever going to use a 45. Cheating was a way of life that continues to this day. The National Guard was an equal opportunity employer. It accepted people from both parties, back in the day when getting along with each other was a crime.

Methinks you totally missed the point of the post.
And what prompted the subject matter in the one above???

[Guest]

I know what the point of everything the Republicans posting here have. Everything that a Democrat or Independent has to say isn't worth a damn. Anything that they know is right will never come up in their post. Always deflect. Always call the opponent a name to try to get him/her off their point. When you know are wrong, stop posting on the thread. Did I miss anything?

I am getting the feeling that the only ones with a brain on this board, are one liners that call people names, or use cute name in referring to the opposite party.

[Guest]

I hated when the media referred to Obama as the black president.

I know. They should refer to him as the black Muslim president

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1091468]I know. They should refer to him as the black Muslim president[/QUOTE

Just an inflammatory attempt by a troll to get an anti Tea Party smart alec comment. We can see right through you.

[Guest]

Even the pundits on Fox were trying to figure out to consequences if Trump ran independent of the Republican party. They seemed to think it would be a shoe in for the Democratic candidate.

Is Trump that vain? There is no way the GOP will have him as their President candidate and no way would he accept the VP slot on the ticket.

What is going to happen?

[Guest]

As someone who posted quite a bit on the old political forum and this new GUEST format forum, I honestly believe it is time to shut this down.

The HATE here is palpable and the posts have lost all reason.

I have strong opinions, but have tried not to call anyone vicious names, except in an effort to shut down their hate. AND THAT WAS WRONG TO DO.

Way back, a sharing of thoughts took place. No longer.

I believe it should be closed down. I certainly will GUARANTEE this time, I am done.

Some are coming on here to simply spread hate, and that is just scary.

To the Admin...thanks for the effort. Good luck to all, and to those who think this is false, I can only say...goodbye and good luck.

My wish for everybody is that they read a lot ON BOTH SIDES, and not just one, and that we all brush up on our comprehension skills. I also hope freedom for those, on both sides of the aisle, who are so party oriented it has trapped them and disallowed growth outside what a few wish you to think

I have been on here since 2007, and actually will miss it, but there is enough hate in the world without being exposed to more on a local forum with neighbors.

[Guest]

Trump is the clear favorite for a majority of Republicans because many of the Republican candidates are not living up to the Republican brand. the Republican Party worked to fund Export Import Bank which is nothing but corporate welfare, punted on the Obamacare fight, refused to defund Planned Parenthood, have attacked conservative members who stood up for Republican principles, refused to support a late term abortion bill, passed the buck on Immigration to the courts.

Further it is a mistake for the Republican National Committee to excluded any Republican candidate from the upcoming 11 debates. They did that in 2012 and we saw the results. The Establishment Republicans got it wrong and they will get it wrong this time

Trump may not be a viable candidate but perhaps this process will help shape him better. It certainly is going to shake up what has become a love fest to one of some open honest straight talking.

You can join Trump Troopers and you are not even asked to contribute.

Its a long way to the voting booth and anything can happen

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Why all the focus on the impact of Trump as a third party candidate? He's been in the lead the entire way. Maybe instead of calling him names the other Republican should focus on the issues.

I'm an old white Republican and I'm voting for him.

[Guest]

As someone who posted quite a bit on the old political forum and this new GUEST format forum, I honestly believe it is time to shut this down.

The HATE here is palpable and the posts have lost all reason.

I have strong opinions, but have tried not to call anyone vicious names, except in an effort to shut down their hate. AND THAT WAS WRONG TO DO.

Way back, a sharing of thoughts took place. No longer.

I believe it should be closed down. I certainly will GUARANTEE this time, I am done.

Some are coming on here to simply spread hate, and that is just scary.

To the Admin...thanks for the effort. Good luck to all, and to those who think this is false, I can only say...goodbye and good luck.

My wish for everybody is that they read a lot ON BOTH SIDES, and not just one, and that we all brush up on our comprehension skills. I also hope freedom for those, on both sides of the aisle, who are so party oriented it has trapped them and disallowed growth outside what a few wish you to think

I have been on here since 2007, and actually will miss it, but there is enough hate in the world without being exposed to more on a local forum with neighbors.

Please refrain from the tactics that got the original political forum shut down....i.e. shut it down because.....

There just happens to be a few that are contrarian about anything and everything that is stated in opposition to what the support. Those few are nasty, inconsiderate and are noteworthy for their personal attacks and NEVER EVER addressing the subject being discussed.

This is a 100% opt in situation with a second layer of anonymity to protect users from harassment.

If you opted in and you do not like what is being said, the solution is not to shut it down. That is exactly the problem in America today the few antagonists scare away some ent folks who mean well (I think).
But to take away a forum that lets most of us try to discuss current events that will affect our lives now and in the future is only playing into the monority (not race) and partisan radicals who revel in disruption and cause people like you to throw in the towel. That is a win for them and a loss to the majority.

Just opt out or better yet, stay and participate and just learn to ignore the hate catharsis of the few.

[Guest]

Platinum level hypocrites. The ones who trumpet back what they do and say as the problem with those who do not agree with them.

[Guest]

Trump is the clear favorite for a majority of Republicans because many of the Republican candidates are not living up to the Republican brand. the Republican Party worked to fund Export Import Bank which is nothing but corporate welfare, punted on the Obamacare fight, refused to defund Planned Parenthood, have attacked conservative members who stood up for Republican principles, refused to support a late term abortion bill, passed the buck on Immigration to the courts.

Further it is a mistake for the Republican National Committee to excluded any Republican candidate from the upcoming 11 debates. They did that in 2012 and we saw the results. The Establishment Republicans got it wrong and they will get it wrong this time

Trump may not be a viable candidate but perhaps this process will help shape him better. It certainly is going to shake up what has become a love fest to one of some open honest straight talking.

You can join Trump Troopers and you are not even asked to contribute.

Its a long way to the voting booth and anything can happen

Personal Best Regards:

What is Trump's position on the Export/Import Bank? On Obamacare? On Planned Parenthood? On late term abortions? He only speaks about building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants and bringing jobs from China and Japan. How will you do that Donald?

Trump said last week in Laredo that he is running as a republican, and he is leading in all the polls by double digits. It is difficult to run as a third party candidate, just getting on the ballot in all 50 states, and why should he? He is at the head of the table.

[Guest]

Trump will run as an independent, if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. Have you seen any indication at all, that he will accept defeat for the nomination? The man thinks that he can do no wrong. He was on Morning Joe this week. He attack Joe Scarborough, and Joe had a hard time not laughing. Trump complaint was in one comparisons among the Republicans running, Trump wasn't mentioned, and Trump took offense.

Joe told him too calm down. Trump thinks that it is all about Trump. After Trump left the air, the talk was you could praise Trump on 95% of the items, and disagreement with 5%. He will only talk about the 5% items, and never finish an argument until you agree with him, or just leave a no win situation.

Trump also said the illegals that have been a long time, and haven't broken any laws should be given legal status. That is going to go over real well in the Republican party.

[Guest]

What is Trump's position on the Export/Import Bank? On Obamacare? On Planned Parenthood? On late term abortions? He only speaks about building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants and bringing jobs from China and Japan. How will you do that Donald

You are right. Trump has not spoken on other issues. He is all fluff and hot air. Just getting his ME time and is the biggest blowhard there ever has been.

He is SO vain that he will run as a 3rd party and will hand the election to the Democratic party.

Blame Donald for Hillary!

[Guest]

Let's just all voice our opinions without attacking each other. We can do it. We are all adults

[Guest]

I like Trump too, but he is not presidential and if his ego rushes him to judgment by running 3rd party , Aloha Hillary!

[Guest]

As someone who posted quite a bit on the old political forum and this new GUEST format forum, I honestly believe it is time to shut this down.

The HATE here is palpable and the posts have lost all reason.

I have strong opinions, but have tried not to call anyone vicious names, except in an effort to shut down their hate. AND THAT WAS WRONG TO DO.

Way back, a sharing of thoughts took place. No longer.

I believe it should be closed down. I certainly will GUARANTEE this time, I am done.

Some are coming on here to simply spread hate, and that is just scary.

To the Admin...thanks for the effort. Good luck to all, and to those who think this is false, I can only say...goodbye and good luck.

My wish for everybody is that they read a lot ON BOTH SIDES, and not just one, and that we all brush up on our comprehension skills. I also hope freedom for those, on both sides of the aisle, who are so party oriented it has trapped them and disallowed growth outside what a few wish you to think

I have been on here since 2007, and actually will miss it, but there is enough hate in the world without being exposed to more on a local forum with neighbors.
Just like the Terminator, you'll be back.

[Guest]

A parting disagreement!
It is too easy to manage opposition, especially those not known and in anonymity....
therefore no reason th shut down this forum.
Adios!

[Guest]

Some pundits are suggesting that if Trump runs as a third party candidate and takes his supporters with him, republicans will only get about 30% of the vote.

It's hard to see what their winning strategy is when they alienate Hispanics (17% of the population), alienate African Americans (13% of the population), alienate women (53 % of the population), alienate Muslims, alienate the LGBT community, alienate young people.

There just are not enough old white people in the Party Of Old People to win an election going forward.

"Alienate?" How so? Or is this just accusations from the other side, so it must be so? Sounds like something that the liberal media might be responsible for. I have yet to hear anything that would "alienate" those groups, unless the threat of cutting back on their handouts is the issue.

[Guest]

I don't believe Trump will run as third party. He is leading in the Republican party. He IS a Republican, and he knows that he would be handing the election to Billary. Say what you will about him, I doubt he is spiteful enough to hand the Democrats the election.

[Guest]

What is Trump's position on the Export/Import Bank? On Obamacare? On Planned Parenthood? On late term abortions? He only speaks about building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants and bringing jobs from China and Japan. How will you do that Donald?

Trump said last week in Laredo that he is running as a republican, and he is leading in all the polls by double digits. It is difficult to run as a third party candidate, just getting on the ballot in all 50 states, and why should he? He is at the head of the table.

Dear Guest: You misunderstand my message. I am ambivalent concerning Trump and not at all sure if I would vote for him.

for instance I like his bombastic approach because its shaking up the base but prefer a more measure intellectual approach that focuses on the issues and not people.

To be perfectly honest with you I am very interested in hearing more from Carly Fiorina but the news media keep her at bay. I want he to debate on Aug 6 but I don't believe that is going to happen Every time I have heard her speak she makes more sense. she is a breath of honest fresh air with the Trump antics. I have repeatedly submitted to the GOP National my desire to hear her debate.

I have repeatedly submitted to the GOP National that the Republican brand is going down the drain with the immigration issue, common Core EXport/Import and its inability to knock Obama off his perch.
I have explained that the GOP's desire to attract Hispanic/black votes alienates its base and ignores the Asian vote and Asian fully participate
Beside which the Hispanic voter is widely dispersed community from an ethnicity point and also ideological

Listen to Fiorina she could knock Clinton out of the race better than any other GOP candidate if the Republican national Party would give her some room

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

"Alienate?" How so? Or is this just accusations from the other side, so it must be so? Sounds like something that the liberal media might be responsible for. I have yet to hear anything that would "alienate" those groups, unless the threat of cutting back on their handouts is the issue.


Does anyone think that Trump's birther tirade over the past seven, eight years against the first black president is going to endear him to black voters?

Does anyone think that Trump's remarks about Mexican immigrants being rapists and criminals sets well with Hispanics? He also included Cubans in his diatribe, which was true when Fidel Castro emptied his prisons and mental hospitals and shipped those Cubans to the US during the Mariel boatlift, but that was 40/50 years ago and can't be corrected now.

Eventually he will have to take a position on women's issues and gay marriage, although he has stated various positions in the past. Trump has also strongly supported single-payer healthcare for all. Should be an interesting debate next week.

[Guest]

I doubt that anything anyone says about "the first black president" is going to change voter turn out. Obama has equally let down every aspect of society with his flip-flop and catering to the Islamic enemy.
One statement about illegal aliens shouldn't have much effect on LEGAL votes.
If he stays away from the liberal traps regarding issues abortion and gay marriage, already a moot point, he could fair well in the debates.

I am not prepared to vote for him myself, but he does have a large lead in the polls. Many folks were fooled by Obama's rants when he was running, so what's the difference here, other than the fact that this one has a reputation for success and Obama had NO resume' whatsoever. Trump does not have that factor of being the "first" in anything that I can discern, so Billary does have him beat there. Like Obama's being "the first" Billary is also running on her being "the first." That's ALL she has going for her right now, and that may not even be enough to get her past all her mistakes to take the primary, let alone the general election.
I'm still kind of leaning toward Kasich myself. But, if Trump gets the nomination to run against the liberal or socialist, he'll get my vote.

[Guest]

I like Trump too, but he is not presidential and if his ego rushes him to judgment by running 3rd party , Aloha Hillary!

Not presidential?? Oh my God no one is less presidentiall than Obama he is going down as the worst in history and Hillary just another obama:a040:

[Guest]

Trump has his competition by the short hairs. That's how he does business. Hard to fault that as long it works. And it is working oh so well. In 2012 when Michele Bachmann and Heman Cain had their crazy runs the RNC had Romney in the wings as the electable candidate. There was a feeling that when all settled down the party could focus on the election. That scenario no longer exists.

Trump has dictated that all play by his rules and play nice. If not, he's on his own. And what is there to stop him? As long as he is #1 he will run as a Republican. If he is ganged up on just think of him in the board room. I think that the upcoming debate will show which candidates don't want to be "fired" and which will incur his wrath. Let the games begin!

[Guest]

Trump has his competition by the short hairs. That's how he does business. Hard to fault that as long it works. And it is working oh so well. In 2012 when Michele Bachmann and Heman Cain had their crazy runs the RNC had Romney in the wings as the electable candidate. There was a feeling that when all settled down the party could focus on the election. That scenario no longer exists.

Trump has dictated that all play by his rules and play nice. If not, he's on his own. And what is there to stop him? As long as he is #1 he will run as a Republican. If he is ganged up on just think of him in the board room. I think that the upcoming debate will show which candidates don't want to be "fired" and which will incur his wrath. Let the games begin!


So true, and Fox News has the other candidates eating their own just to get some attention. Since when did cable news get to pick who can stay and who must go. Isn't cable news supposed to report the news and not make the news?

Murdock and Ales will sit down soon and decide who can appear in the debate next week. Meanwhile, the others will continue to burn their phones, chain-saw the tax code, and make statements about Obama leading Jews to the ovens. At least he didn't say 'and then he lit the match'.

The GOP, with much help from Donald Trump, has turned the presidential election into reality TV. The only thing missing, so far, is Sarah Palin and Josh Duggar.

[Guest]

There is one thing we appear to see eye to eye. It is John Kasich. A Republican that extends Medicaid benefits under the ACA to his people in his state. He put people above politics. He also has plenty of experience in government. He has also been away from the total nonsense most of fueled by his party in the last six and half years.

Presidents Obama's place in history will be somewhere in the middle. That smiley face jumping up and down will turn into a frown. Too bad! So sad!! The Republicans in Comgress for the past six and half years will be the worse in our history, and there isn't a close second. Obstruction! Obstruction! Obstruction! Criticize, Condemn, and complain! Offer any alternative that makes sense? No my job man!. My job is to do nothing, and I am damn proud of it.

Go Dump go! Lead the charge of the hopelessly insane into the valley of total nonsense. Do it loudly with gusto and arms waving. It is not like they have any idea what they are in store for them when they hit the wall. Hurry! Hurry! Hurry! Finish that wall. See how easy to make fun of the Republican party. The only thing that is next to impossible to do is have them actually listen to anyone, who oppose them. They are always right. A great example is the Iraq war. What could go wrong there?Close to four thousand lives, and trillions of dollars. That is almost as bad as Benghazi!
The gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans do nothings.

[Guest]

Not presidential?? Oh my God no one is less presidentiall than Obama he is going down as the worst in history and Hillary just another obama:a040:

OMG; the Party Of Old People has turned into the Amnesia Party, which sort of follows since one of the first things to go in old people is the memory.

Just a short review of what President Obama inherited; collapse of financial market, two unnecessary wars, loss of 750,000 jobs per month, collapse of auto industry, Dow Jones under 7000. And now they want to take over again?

[Guest]

OMG; the Party Of Old People has turned into the Amnesia Party, which sort of follows since one of the first things to go in old people is the memory.

Just a short review of what President Obama inherited; collapse of financial market, two unnecessary wars, loss of 750,000 jobs per month, collapse of auto industry, Dow Jones under 7000. And now they want to take over again?


Nothing to worry about. The old geezers who are doing their Tea Bag hate messages on this forum do not represent mainstream voters. They are the lunatic fringe and count for absolutely nothing.

The fragmented Old People's Party has lost touch with reality (as have the geezers) and will just dissolve away like yesterday's coffee grounds.

[Guest]

Not presidential?? Oh my God no one is less presidentiall than Obama he is going down as the worst in history and Hillary just another obama:a040:

:agree::agree:

[Guest]

Nothing to worry about. The old geezers who are doing their Tea Bag hate messages on this forum do not represent mainstream voters. They are the lunatic fringe and count for absolutely nothing.

The fragmented Old People's Party has lost touch with reality (as have the geezers) and will just dissolve away like yesterday's coffee grounds.

I guess that is debatable. I find it amusing when one resorts to "hate" and the deviant slur for the Tea Party that is commonly used by desperate liberals when they are unable to sustain a coercive/cohesive debate. Not being a Tea Party member, but finding no fault in their ideology I enjoy hearing from those that probably endorse the Occupy Wall Street deviants.

"Old Geezers" made this country, so a bit more respect in one's language is deserved, even if one doesn't agree.

[Guest]

Nothing to worry about. The old geezers who are doing their Tea Bag hate messages on this forum do not represent mainstream voters. They are the lunatic fringe and count for absolutely nothing.

The fragmented Old People's Party has lost touch with reality (as have the geezers) and will just dissolve away like yesterday's coffee grounds.

And you all are the oh so organized with it.....what is appropriate as opposed to old geezers.....young punks.

Fortunately for all of us the crude and rude are a minority group in the overall scheme of reality. THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

OMG; the Party Of Old People has turned into the Amnesia Party, which sort of follows since one of the first things to go in old people is the memory.

Just a short review of what President Obama inherited; collapse of financial market, two unnecessary wars, loss of 750,000 jobs per month, collapse of auto industry, Dow Jones under 7000. And now they want to take over again?

The most jobs lost were under Obama.
The highest national debt in history - under Obama.
The highest and still highest food stamp rate - under Obama.
No budget for how many years? Under Obama and Democrat majority congress
Most folks leaving job force - under Obama
Most divisive president ever - Obama
Most flip-flops ever - Obama
Most lies ever - Obama
Most racially biased - Obama
Who said "Republicans can sit in the back of the bus" ?? Obama
Who said to Illegal Aliens "Republicans are your enemy" ?? Obama
Sorry, the list is too long. Yes, he is the most unpresidential yet, as well as unprofessional. I hope that the Republican hopefuls don't fall into the same trap of trying emulate his poor performance in order to get public favor.
We need a leader, manager, professional -- not an entertainer.

If Bush was a mistake then Obama was a world disaster. The world would be in better shape had we elected Romney. Just my opinion and not substantiated. But, one part of it is validated and that is the Obama disaster.

[Guest]

And you all are the oh so organized with it.....what is appropriate as opposed to old geezers.....young punks.

Fortunately for all of us the crude and rude are a minority group in the overall scheme of reality. THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:agree::agree:

[Guest]

OMG; the Party Of Old People has turned into the Amnesia Party, which sort of follows since one of the first things to go in old people is the memory.

Just a short review of what President Obama inherited; collapse of financial market, two unnecessary wars, loss of 750,000 jobs per month, collapse of auto industry, Dow Jones under 7000. And now they want to take over again?

Party of old people ?

When did you last look at the leadership of the Democratic Party ?

[Guest]

Nothing to worry about. The old geezers who are doing their Tea Bag hate messages on this forum do not represent mainstream voters. They are the lunatic fringe and count for absolutely nothing.

The fragmented Old People's Party has lost touch with reality (as have the geezers) and will just dissolve away like yesterday's coffee grounds.

Oooh there we go again.

Liberal Demorats who always equate disagreement with "hate" and completely confuse their mental state with normal ... which it's not. Entertaining if nothing else

[Guest]

Party of old people ?

When did you last look at the leadership of the Democratic Party ?

:a20:

[Guest]

Oooh there we go again.

Liberal Demorats who always equate disagreement with "hate" and completely confuse their mental state with normal ... which it's not. Entertaining if nothing else

These "old geezers" have earned and enjoy a retirement. I wonder about the young that can afford to be on here instead of working for a living. Of course, thanks to Obama, you are not considered an adult until you are 26. :popcorn:

[Guest]

Nothing to worry about. The old geezers who are doing their Tea Bag hate messages on this forum do not represent mainstream voters. They are the lunatic fringe and count for absolutely nothing.

The fragmented Old People's Party has lost touch with reality (as have the geezers) and will just dissolve away like yesterday's coffee grounds.

Sorry but "Tea B**" is a deviant slur more closely related to the liberal ideology than to "old geezers" of the right. If you check your history, references to the Tea Party had nothing to do with liberal sexual deviation. chilout

[Guest]

Most jobs lost under Obama! Is that right. The numbers below are in the thousands. George W. Bush R 2001–2005 132,696 132,752 +56 +0.01%
George W. Bush R 2005–2009 132,752 133,977 +1,225 +0.23%
Barack Obama D 2009–2013 133,977 135,293 +1,316 +0.25%
Barack Obama D 2013–2015 135,293 141,679 +6,386 +2.00

Bush jobs gained 1,281,000, and Obama 7,702,000. Bush's 2009 numbers are thru 9/30/09. That is the government's fiscal year. There is NOTHING that this president did in the first nine months of his presidency that anyone with an open mind would tag the job losses to him. The Great Recession is on "W". It bottom out in July, 2009.

Highest national debt in history. Of course, it is. The next president will have the highest national debt in history on the second day of their presidency. That assumes that day one debt increase will be $1.00. If you use the debt, when the great recession bottomed out, "W" added more debt than Obama has. That includes adding the debt caused by the Iraq war to Obama. add it to "W", and there is no contest. Bush blows him out of the water.

Should I go on? Why? The Republicans put all fact based number completely out of their mind. Why ruin their good rant? Anyone that actually throws facts out there is put on ignore by the "open minded Republicans" here. Mr. Sarcasm right back at you.

Most racially biased. I guess you kind of missed Andrew Jackson.

Most divisive president ever. I guess you missed Abraham Lincoln. McConnell, the filibuster king, had nothing at all to do with the divisiveness for the past six and a half years. It is all on President Obama.

Your list is a direct result of a closed mind, and a total distortion of facts.

[Guest]

Nothing to worry about. The old geezers who are doing their Tea Bag hate messages on this forum do not represent mainstream voters. They are the lunatic fringe and count for absolutely nothing.

The fragmented Old People's Party has lost touch with reality (as have the geezers) and will just dissolve away like yesterday's coffee grounds.

And you "represent mainstream voters?" :1rotfl::a20:

[Guest]

Most jobs lost under Obama! Is that right. The numbers below are in the thousands. George W. Bush R 2001–2005 132,696 132,752 +56 +0.01%
George W. Bush R 2005–2009 132,752 133,977 +1,225 +0.23%
Barack Obama D 2009–2013 133,977 135,293 +1,316 +0.25%
Barack Obama D 2013–2015 135,293 141,679 +6,386 +2.00

Bush jobs gained 1,281,000, and Obama 7,702,000. Bush's 2009 numbers are thru 9/30/09. That is the government's fiscal year. There is NOTHING that this president did in the first nine months of his presidency that anyone with an open mind would tag the job losses to him. The Great Recession is on "W". It bottom out in July, 2009.

Highest national debt in history. Of course, it is. The next president will have the highest national debt in history on the second day of their presidency. That assumes that day one debt increase will be $1.00. If you use the debt, when the great recession bottomed out, "W" added more debt than Obama has. That includes adding the debt caused by the Iraq war to Obama. add it to "W", and there is no contest. Bush blows him out of the water.

Should I go on? Why? The Republicans put all fact based number completely out of their mind. Why ruin their good rant? Anyone that actually throws facts out there is put on ignore by the "open minded Republicans" here. Mr. Sarcasm right back at you.

Most racially biased. I guess you kind of missed Andrew Jackson.

Most divisive president ever. I guess you missed Abraham Lincoln. McConnell, the filibuster king, had nothing at all to do with the divisiveness for the past six and a half years. It is all on President Obama.

Your list is a direct result of a closed mind, and a total distortion of facts.

Nice distortion job. I enjoy how some distort the facts or divert to smoke and mirrors to hide the facts.

Like I said, more folks have left the job force than ever before.
Gotta love the way some folks need to blame someone else for their leader's failure. Still blaming Bush?
How long did it take the Bush (not necessarily his total credit) administration or economy to get back on track after the stock crash after 9/11? Not very long. Obama still can't get it right. Why? Because he is an amateur and has no one working for him that has half a brain.
Jobs gained? Bush didn't need to have a giant gain in job growth because he had low unemployment. Obama lost so many jobs that even with more jobs created, his glass is only half full.
Middle class workers have lost their level in lifestyle.
Poverty level is higher.
How much whitewash are the liberals going to put on Obama's blunders and lack of leadership in his own party to cover up his total failure?
Obama is more interested in entertainment than working. He is lazy and inept. Even his wife avoids him like he is contagious.

[Guest]

""There is NOTHING that this president did in the first nine months of his presidency that anyone with an open mind would tag the job losses to him. ""

WRONG!!! Someone must have been sleeping or they would know better. :confused:

[Guest]

Most jobs lost under Obama! Is that right. The numbers below are in the thousands. George W. Bush R 2001–2005 132,696 132,752 +56 +0.01%
George W. Bush R 2005–2009 132,752 133,977 +1,225 +0.23%
Barack Obama D 2009–2013 133,977 135,293 +1,316 +0.25%
Barack Obama D 2013–2015 135,293 141,679 +6,386 +2.00

Bush jobs gained 1,281,000, and Obama 7,702,000. Bush's 2009 numbers are thru 9/30/09. That is the government's fiscal year. There is NOTHING that this president did in the first nine months of his presidency that anyone with an open mind would tag the job losses to him. The Great Recession is on "W". It bottom out in July, 2009.

Highest national debt in history. Of course, it is. The next president will have the highest national debt in history on the second day of their presidency. That assumes that day one debt increase will be $1.00. If you use the debt, when the great recession bottomed out, "W" added more debt than Obama has. That includes adding the debt caused by the Iraq war to Obama. add it to "W", and there is no contest. Bush blows him out of the water.

Should I go on? Why? The Republicans put all fact based number completely out of their mind. Why ruin their good rant? Anyone that actually throws facts out there is put on ignore by the "open minded Republicans" here. Mr. Sarcasm right back at you.

Most racially biased. I guess you kind of missed Andrew Jackson.

Most divisive president ever. I guess you missed Abraham Lincoln. McConnell, the filibuster king, had nothing at all to do with the divisiveness for the past six and a half years. It is all on President Obama.

Your list is a direct result of a closed mind, and a total distortion of facts.

Obama's administration increased the national debt by trillions, not billions. How do you spin it so that he didn't double the national debt?
Sorry, I wasn't around during Jackson's administration. I guess one excuse is as good as any, right? Had to reach way back for a comparison?
Are you going to try to compare McConnell to that little twerp in the senate that he replaced? How many House passed bills did that twerp sit on and not allow them to be voted upon? When they illegally forced Obamacare through and lied about it not costing anything, did the Republicans have anything to do with that? Were they included in it at all?

Rewrite history all you want, but living in denial is a liberal trait, not conservative. Take down all the flags and statues you want, but history may be rewritten but not changed.

[Guest]

And you "represent mainstream voters?" :1rotfl::a20:

That be right. We be the mainstream voters and you old geezers have no say anymore. You are not relevant in the real world. Hate to break it to you but the world has passed you by and you are now just laying by the side of the road. You had a good run but it is now up to us - the new generation.

[Guest]

But, since the liberal poster(s) have digressed from the subject of the Trump threat, let me summarize my/my thoughts.

Billary is the threat. A threat to our great nation. Almost the threat that Obama has posed and probably just as damaging to the American way. I would vote for Trump's butler over Billary. If Trump gets the GOP nomination, he will get my vote. Billary couldn't buy my vote. Unlike Obama, I doubt she would even try. Her ego is so great that she doesn't even think she should have to go through the process.
What threat could Trump possibly pose that AMerica hasn't already endured in the past six years or so? I doubt he would be inviting John Stewart to the White House to give him some pointers on how to deride the opposing party, or disparage law endorcement.

[Guest]

That be right. We be the mainstream voters and you old geezers have no say anymore. You are not relevant in the real world. Hate to break it to you but the world has passed you by and you are now just laying by the side of the road. You had a good run but it is now up to us - the new generation.

How can the new generation threaten to take something that they don't have the motivation to work for or at? You can't run the country from your parent's home. Better take some driving lessons before demanding the old man's car keys. Faster doesn't mean smarter. :a20:

[Guest]

Nice try guys. original post - Most jobs lost under Obama. Most folks leaving the work force under Obama. I clearly stated, which statement I was addressing, somehow my answer gets applied to your second question. I am distorting facts! Those are the job numbers; whether, they fit your narrative or not. You love how some distort facts. Then, clearly you are really in love with yourself.

The 2001 recession didn't come anywhere close to the 2008 recession. Of course, he came out of it quicker. The 9/11 attacks added to the recession. The 9/11 attack wasn't on the US financial system. The 2008 banking crisis was a direct attack on the financial system, and it almost brought the entire banking system down. To make it worst money that could have been used in a stimulus plan went toward the Iraq war. There weren't any shovel ready projects in 2009, because the Republicans could care less about the roads and bridges.

How long will people keep blaming "W"? Probably as long as people keep blaming President Obama for things that he was handed in 2009. Let "W''s punishment fit the crime.

Bush certainly had low unemployment. He was also handed a surplus. He got rid of that in one big hurry, didn't he? Are you even going to try and sell that "W', and President Obama started their presidencies on an identical financial basis? I would really like to see that.

Posted number 2 come on down. I didn't have to go back that far. Jackson was the first one that came to mind. You said worst. Jackson was the worst.

How am I going to spin it that President Obama didn't double the national debt? How about using real numbers and first grade math. The numbers will be in the trillions as noted. debt 9/30/01 5,807 trillion, debt 9/30/09 12,104, debt 9/30/14 17,824.
If debt doubled under President Obama it would be 12,104 * 2= 24,208. I could be distorting facts again, which apparently I have a habit of doing, but I think 17,824 is less than 24,208. Bush increased debt by 5,704 (12,104-6,400) Obama 5,720 (17,824-12,104). The increases are real close aren't they? You can add another trillion by 9/30/16 to Obama. That's fair, and maybe conservative. But it will be nowhere near double.

Let me guess, Boehner has let every bill hit the floor to be voted on. The Hassett (sp) rule was only a suggestion, and not a rule. The Supreme Count just ruled that there is nothing illegal about the ACA. Please explain what is illegal about the ACA. Repeal, and Replace! When the Republicans talk about replace, what is their replacement? They don't have one. So, every time they make that statement they are lying. I guess that they are trying to compete with the "fair and balance" lie that Fox keeps repeating with no shame.

Please by all means tell me what facts I am distorting! A conservative trait is blaming everyone else for everything. When you do nothing, you can't get blamed for anything. So, maybe they have something there.

[Guest]

That be right. We be the mainstream voters and you old geezers have no say anymore. You are not relevant in the real world. Hate to break it to you but the world has passed you by and you are now just laying by the side of the road. You had a good run but it is now up to us - the new generation.


Hello, English please.

[Guest]

Nice try guys. original post - Most jobs lost under Obama. Most folks leaving the work force under Obama. I clearly stated, which statement I was addressing, somehow my answer gets applied to your second question. I am distorting facts! Those are the job numbers; whether, they fit your narrative or not. You love how some distort facts. Then, clearly you are really in love with yourself.

The 2001 recession didn't come anywhere close to the 2008 recession. Of course, he came out of it quicker. The 9/11 attacks added to the recession. The 9/11 attack wasn't on the US financial system. The 2008 banking crisis was a direct attack on the financial system, and it almost brought the entire banking system down. To make it worst money that could have been used in a stimulus plan went toward the Iraq war. There weren't any shovel ready projects in 2009, because the Republicans could care less about the roads and bridges.

How long will people keep blaming "W"? Probably as long as people keep blaming President Obama for things that he was handed in 2009. Let "W''s punishment fit the crime.

Bush certainly had low unemployment. He was also handed a surplus. He got rid of that in one big hurry, didn't he? Are you even going to try and sell that "W', and President Obama started their presidencies on an identical financial basis? I would really like to see that.

Posted number 2 come on down. I didn't have to go back that far. Jackson was the first one that came to mind. You said worst. Jackson was the worst.

How am I going to spin it that President Obama didn't double the national debt? How about using real numbers and first grade math. The numbers will be in the trillions as noted. debt 9/30/01 5,807 trillion, debt 9/30/09 12,104, debt 9/30/14 17,824.
If debt doubled under President Obama it would be 12,104 * 2= 24,208. I could be distorting facts again, which apparently I have a habit of doing, but I think 17,824 is less than 24,208. Bush increased debt by 5,704 (12,104-6,400) Obama 5,720 (17,824-12,104). The increases are real close aren't they? You can add another trillion by 9/30/16 to Obama. That's fair, and maybe conservative. But it will be nowhere near double.

Let me guess, Boehner has let every bill hit the floor to be voted on. The Hassett (sp) rule was only a suggestion, and not a rule. The Supreme Count just ruled that there is nothing illegal about the ACA. Please explain what is illegal about the ACA. Repeal, and Replace! When the Republicans talk about replace, what is their replacement? They don't have one. So, every time they make that statement they are lying. I guess that they are trying to compete with the "fair and balance" lie that Fox keeps repeating with no shame.

Please by all means tell me what facts I am distorting! A conservative trait is blaming everyone else for everything. When you do nothing, you can't get blamed for anything. So, maybe they have something there.

I couldn't even read your complete post without laughing and having to correct you. Clinton did NOT have a surplus Check the facts on Treasurydirect.gov if you don't believe me. We haven't had a surplus since Eisenhower. Check the national debt records and you will see that that was the ONLY time that any of the national debt was paid down. It is real easy for someone to submit a budget on their outgoing year, and create the illusion of a budget surplus, but that is all smoke and mirrors. Until it happens, it just ain't so.
You think you have some facts, but anyone can throw around numbers to suit them. The fact is that Obama still has a net loss in employed workers. Obama still has a record amount of food stamp recipients. Obama is a liar. Obama stole from Medicare to finance Obamacare. Obama said he would not increase taxes to support Obamacare, and yet the Supremes deemed his mandate to be a tax. Obama is unprofessional and sticks his nose into any controversial issue in individual states. Obama was told by the Supremes that his moratorium on drilling in the gulf was unconstitutional and he ignored them. He has issued several illegal directives. He refuses to uphold federal law, with is against his oath of office. How much more do you need before you quit blaming Bush and the Republicans when they were the minority in congress for Obama's failures? Obama admits that he is a socialist. He admitted to breaking drug use laws. You can keep bailing that sinking ship but lets face it, if he was anyone else, he would have been impeached by now.

[Guest]

We are in total agreement anyone can throw around numbers to suit themselves. Clinton did have a budget surplus, and it wasn't in just in his final year. You can check the chart put together by the Congressional Budget Office. It is on fact check. Clinton had a surplus of 236.2 billion for the years 1998-2001. "W" had a deficit of 412.7 billion for the years 2002-2006. By all means, keep laughing. I don't want to be a kill joy. You are right the debt never decreased under Clinton. The debt, and the budget surplus/deficit are two different things.

The first question we were asked in Accounting 101 was "how much is one plus one". The answer was "whatever you want it to be". I had the unmistakable honor of serving on a city budget review committee. The town manager budgeted for increases in personnel that they knew they were never going to hire. The budget for the cost of heating oil was twice the going rate. Expenses all over the place were inflated. Tax revenue was based upon an inflated budget. The actual expenses came lower than budgeted. Bingo, a surplus. The federal government is 3 trillion dollars higher. Can you even begin to imagine how much expenses are inflated there. That is why the sequester didn't hurt in the first couple of years.

What I am saying you can use the same budget numbers, and support any argument you want. The budget is a best guess.

The Supreme Court, in particular, Chairman Roberts called it a tax. President Obama called it a fine for not having health insurance. I do not know, if that qualifies as a lie.
The one thing that should really be changed on ACA is the fine for people that don't have health insurance. People that would qualify for Medicaid in states that didn't except the Medicaid provision shouldn't the fined. You can't justify fining people for politics as usual between the parties.

The government moving money around isn't stealing. It happens all the time. I think it was President Reagan, who was the first to use either Social Security or Medicare funds, to pay for normal government expenses. I know that you are not going to call him a thief.

In Republican dominated states, he is the enemy. Why wouldn't he stick his nose in there along with the Attorney General? All the rulings lately have gone against states. That would seem to indicate that he isn't the problem.

I think a lot of the things you are accusing him of are in the court system now. He hasn't done anything that he could be impeached for not yet anyway. Since he will be sitting on his hands for the next year and a half, he is safe impeachment wise.

[Guest]

Nice try guys. original post - Most jobs lost under Obama. Most folks leaving the work force under Obama. I clearly stated, which statement I was addressing, somehow my answer gets applied to your second question. I am distorting facts! Those are the job numbers; whether, they fit your narrative or not. You love how some distort facts. Then, clearly you are really in love with yourself.

The 2001 recession didn't come anywhere close to the 2008 recession. Of course, he came out of it quicker. The 9/11 attacks added to the recession. The 9/11 attack wasn't on the US financial system. The 2008 banking crisis was a direct attack on the financial system, and it almost brought the entire banking system down. To make it worst money that could have been used in a stimulus plan went toward the Iraq war. There weren't any shovel ready projects in 2009, because the Republicans could care less about the roads and bridges.

How long will people keep blaming "W"? Probably as long as people keep blaming President Obama for things that he was handed in 2009. Let "W''s punishment fit the crime.

Bush certainly had low unemployment. He was also handed a surplus. He got rid of that in one big hurry, didn't he? Are you even going to try and sell that "W', and President Obama started their presidencies on an identical financial basis? I would really like to see that.

Posted number 2 come on down. I didn't have to go back that far. Jackson was the first one that came to mind. You said worst. Jackson was the worst.

How am I going to spin it that President Obama didn't double the national debt? How about using real numbers and first grade math. The numbers will be in the trillions as noted. debt 9/30/01 5,807 trillion, debt 9/30/09 12,104, debt 9/30/14 17,824.
If debt doubled under President Obama it would be 12,104 * 2= 24,208. I could be distorting facts again, which apparently I have a habit of doing, but I think 17,824 is less than 24,208. Bush increased debt by 5,704 (12,104-6,400) Obama 5,720 (17,824-12,104). The increases are real close aren't they? You can add another trillion by 9/30/16 to Obama. That's fair, and maybe conservative. But it will be nowhere near double.

Let me guess, Boehner has let every bill hit the floor to be voted on. The Hassett (sp) rule was only a suggestion, and not a rule. The Supreme Count just ruled that there is nothing illegal about the ACA. Please explain what is illegal about the ACA. Repeal, and Replace! When the Republicans talk about replace, what is their replacement? They don't have one. So, every time they make that statement they are lying. I guess that they are trying to compete with the "fair and balance" lie that Fox keeps repeating with no shame.

Please by all means tell me what facts I am distorting! A conservative trait is blaming everyone else for everything. When you do nothing, you can't get blamed for anything. So, maybe they have something there.

Must have gotten your numbers (not facts) from Huffington. You are quite wrong. Try using some gov. stats instead of what some teenager told you.
Besides, this is a Villages forum where we generally have civil discourse. Liberal trolls won't have any effect on voters here.

43 presidents combined national debt = 10.6 trillion
Since Obama, national debt = 18.6 trillion and expected to be over 21.7 by the end of the year. Hmm, wonder what it will be by the time he leaves office.

You do the math, or blame Bush because that's what liberal trolls do.

Bush had NO surplus. That was smoke and mirrors. Clinton never paid down on the national debt. No president has since Eisenhower. But, keep repeating that mantra until you are blue in the face and some young folks will believe you. They want to. But, facts are facts and you can bend them any way that suits you, but you can't change them. By the way, a budget is a financial projection and doesn't become fact until after the financial year. Obama is bragging about reducing the deficit. That means he has reduced how much OVER the budget they spent. If you make $50K a year and you predict that you are going to be $10k over what you make, but you only go $8K over, you have reduced your deficit for the year, but you still went over your budget and more into debt. It's not magic, but putting a spin on it is certainly smoke and mirrors. chilout

[Guest]

We are in total agreement anyone can throw around numbers to suit themselves. Clinton did have a budget surplus, and it wasn't in just in his final year. You can check the chart put together by the Congressional Budget Office. It is on fact check. Clinton had a surplus of 236.2 billion for the years 1998-2001. "W" had a deficit of 412.7 billion for the years 2002-2006. By all means, keep laughing. I don't want to be a kill joy. You are right the debt never decreased under Clinton. The debt, and the budget surplus/deficit are two different things.

The first question we were asked in Accounting 101 was "how much is one plus one". The answer was "whatever you want it to be". I had the unmistakable honor of serving on a city budget review committee. The town manager budgeted for increases in personnel that they knew they were never going to hire. The budget for the cost of heating oil was twice the going rate. Expenses all over the place were inflated. Tax revenue was based upon an inflated budget. The actual expenses came lower than budgeted. Bingo, a surplus. The federal government is 3 trillion dollars higher. Can you even begin to imagine how much expenses are inflated there. That is why the sequester didn't hurt in the first couple of years.

What I am saying you can use the same budget numbers, and support any argument you want. The budget is a best guess.

The Supreme Court, in particular, Chairman Roberts called it a tax. President Obama called it a fine for not having health insurance. I do not know, if that qualifies as a lie.
The one thing that should really be changed on ACA is the fine for people that don't have health insurance. People that would qualify for Medicaid in states that didn't except the Medicaid provision shouldn't the fined. You can't justify fining people for politics as usual between the parties.

The government moving money around isn't stealing. It happens all the time. I think it was President Reagan, who was the first to use either Social Security or Medicare funds, to pay for normal government expenses. I know that you are not going to call him a thief.

In Republican dominated states, he is the enemy. Why wouldn't he stick his nose in there along with the Attorney General? All the rulings lately have gone against states. That would seem to indicate that he isn't the problem.

I think a lot of the things you are accusing him of are in the court system now. He hasn't done anything that he could be impeached for not yet anyway. Since he will be sitting on his hands for the next year and a half, he is safe impeachment wise.

Clinton did NOT have a surplus. A budget is a projection, not history. No, it was not Reagan that started using SS money in the general fund. It was Johnson that used the SS money to fund the Vietnam war. As a matter of fact (see social security history on their site) it has never been into the general fund, but only counted as part of "unified budget." SS is considered a separate account in the federal budget.

I don't have to accuse him of anything. He stands accused but is given a pass that others would not have received. He has refused to enforce federal/constitutional law. When he refused, individual states attempted to enforce federal law, which they do take oath to do when sworn in, and he sic'd the attorney general on them. He has also refused directives of the supreme court, totally ignoring them on several occasions. Thank goodness he can only do so much damage before he is finally ushered out the door.

[Guest]

This thread was supposed to be about Trump, but got off track by some attempting to defend the miserable loser currently in the White House. Sorry, my opinion.

Trump is not my first choice, but as far as him being a "threat" I doubt if anyone can see a comparison when put up against Billary. I can not see where he could do this country any more damage than what is currently occupying the White House. No, I don't see him as a threat to anyone other than those that break federal law, or threatening our national defense. I doubt the socialists can even complain about him because he is kind of liberal in some ways. Hush my mouth!

Like I said before, he is not my first choice but he would get my vote if he wins the primary. Heck, I would vote for his butler or even his dog before I would vote for Billary.

Hmmm, I wonder if Billary is going to use Bush as her excuse. She is accusing the GOP of massive plots against her, women, minorities, old folks and the environment. But, she won't answer questions, especially that GOP plot against her regarding those folks killed in Benghazi, her mishandling of classified information, the 25 million bucks that she FORGOT to claim in her taxes (and she is a lawyer), etc.

I still favor Kasich right now, but until the final day to cast my vote, I will defer from a concrete decision. Any of the contenders would be my choice over Billary. Who knows, maybe the ultra liberals will win out and elect the admitted socialist, Bernie Sanders instead of Billary, if they decide she is too much of a liability.

[Guest]

43 presidents combined national debt = 10.6 trillion
Since Obama, national debt = 18.6 trillion and expected to be over 21.7 by the end of the year. Hmm, wonder what it will be by the time he leaves office.

I got my number wrong, and you throw out the nonsense above. Where the hell did you get your numbers? It must have been in the prize in a Cracker Jack's box with emphasis on cracker. To increase the national debt by 3.1 trillion this year would mean the government would spent 6 trillion dollars this year, or they did collect one dime i income taxes this year. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously, when you spout total nonsense. By all means go back to the one liners.

I got to run, but I'll be back.

[Guest]

43 presidents combined national debt = 10.6 trillion
Since Obama, national debt = 18.6 trillion and expected to be over 21.7 by the end of the year. Hmm, wonder what it will be by the time he leaves office.

I got my number wrong, and you throw out the nonsense above. Where the hell did you get your numbers? It must have been in the prize in a Cracker Jack's box with emphasis on cracker. To increase the national debt by 3.1 trillion this year would mean the government would spent 6 trillion dollars this year, or they did collect one dime i income taxes this year. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously, when you spout total nonsense. By all means go back to the one liners.

I got to run, but I'll be back.

Just suffice it to say that you got your numbers wrong. As of today the national debt is $18+ trillion. I don't make the predictions, but the way the gov is spending, I can see it reaching close to the quoted number. Even if it doesn't reach $20T this year, he still has plenty of time to well exceed the double factor that I used. But, keep trying. The blame Bush thing seems to work real well for your side. Don't worry about the fact that Bush's polls have risen since Obama has done such a "good" job in charge...ha,ha.

By the way, why not use Obama's prediction of what the national debt will be by 2016 and see if that doesn't support my statement.

Advice: Find something that the Palin family is doing. It's a good diversion from the subject and much more appealing. Slight of hand (in this case words) is easier than defending a failure. :wave:

[Guest]

When a liberal posts something that comes right out of a far right's mouth, he is a troll? The first paragraph in the post above is right out your mouth. Maybe not you, but someone with the same distorted view of reality as you. I got my numbers wrong by using the numbers you threw out there.

Clinton did have a budget surplus. That is exactly what I said. I don't give a damn how you big you make NOT. I guess the Congressional Budget Office doesn't know what it is talking about. What is in a middle name anyway?

Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away. Ignoring the words that come right out of your mouth don't change with time.

Here is one question everybody on the far right refuses to answer. What did President Obama do in the first nine months of his presidency that he should be tagged with the debt increase during that period, and the loss of jobs during that period?

What Supreme Court directives did President Obama refuse to enforce? Republican states have tried to dance around Supreme Court rulings that they don't like (ie: abortion, ACA, and gay marriage).

Concerning the name calling, keep it up to your heart's content. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. As a matter of fact, I salute you. That is the Italian hand salute. If you don't speak Italian, I will translate it for you. It is the fist in the air but with one less finger, but has the same meaning.

[Guest]

When a liberal posts something that comes right out of a far right's mouth, he is a troll? The first paragraph in the post above is right out your mouth. Maybe not you, but someone with the same distorted view of reality as you. I got my numbers wrong by using the numbers you threw out there.

Clinton did have a budget surplus. That is exactly what I said. I don't give a damn how you big you make NOT. I guess the Congressional Budget Office doesn't know what it is talking about. What is in a middle name anyway?

Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away. Ignoring the words that come right out of your mouth don't change with time.

Here is one question everybody on the far right refuses to answer. What did President Obama do in the first nine months of his presidency that he should be tagged with the debt increase during that period, and the loss of jobs during that period?

What Supreme Court directives did President Obama refuse to enforce? Republican states have tried to dance around Supreme Court rulings that they don't like (ie: abortion, ACA, and gay marriage).

Concerning the name calling, keep it up to your heart's content. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. As a matter of fact, I salute you. That is the Italian hand salute. If you don't speak Italian, I will translate it for you. It is the fist in the air but with one less finger, but has the same meaning.

I have a budget surplus also..ha,ha. Anyone can budget a fictitious number and then pass it on to his replacement. Gotta love the way liberals like to take pride in a piece of liberal paper that means absolutely nothing in real life. Like I said, Clinton basically said, "OK, this is what Bush should spend next year and if he does this, he will be on budget. If he spends less than this, he will have a budget surplus. It will still be more than what we take in by taxation, but I can claim a "budget surplus." On paper, it sounds great to liberals. Obama recently said he "reduced the deficit." That means he reduced the amount that the gov OVERSPENT. We have not paid down on the national debt since Eisenhower. Please don't try to make Clinton out to be anybody other than the charlatan he really is. Now, you liberals are going to be running amok, shouting that Obama reduced the deficit. That's really impressive to the ignorant, but not to those of us that would like to see him balance the budget, or even pay down on the debt. Of course, in order to balance the budget, he has to have one and how many years did he go without one?
As far as Obama's ignoring or breaking directives by the Supremes, I have done enough of the research for you. Time for you to educate yourself. That's another fault I attribute to liberals. They want everything done for them.
But, you have done a good job of diverting from Trump to blaming Bush again. You are really having a hard time defending Obama, so you would be better off disparaging Trump. That's pretty easy. There is another thread on here referring to the great and mighty Obama thinking he did a good job. Maybe you can make some feeble attempt to defend him there?
I do admire you tenacity, if not your logic. Keep asking questions, and there is still hope for the progressives. Before you know it, you too can become a conservative..:angel:

[Guest]

Trump Dominates Fellow GOPers, But Trails Democrats In New Poll (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/quinnipiac-poll-july-trump-dominates?utm_content=buffer3e7f8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)


Donald Trump leads republicans in all of the latest polls including beating Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Florida. However, he trails Clinton by 12, Biden by 12, and Sanders by 8 in this latest Quinnipiac poll.

[Guest]

Trump mentioned Palin for a cabinet job. He seems to have forgotten she may have been the reason McCain didn't win the election. He has to appeal to the electorate and not the more right-wing element in the Republican party to become President.

[Guest]

This will probably be my last post here. I am getting a standing ovation. I am so happy. I am following the lead of the person that started posting here in 2007, and has left in discussed. This isn't an open political forum. It is a love fest between closed minded far right Republicans. When common sense, and basic math are totally ignored, because they don't support the far right's total nonsense, nothing can penetrate the cement that occupies the space between the far right's ears. Anyone that tries is on a fool's errand.

They use deficit, and debt interchangeably. How can you respond, when you have no idea which one they are referring to? You can't. The debt has gone up, and the deficit by year under President Obama has gone down. It is that simple. Anyone that tries to dispute this, probably can't find his ass with both of his hands.

Right! You want me to do my own research on what Supreme Court directives President Obama has ignored. That's funny. It truly is. What are you hoping for? That I can actually find something that supports your stupid comment?

Guilt by silence! When you are called out on something, and you don't respond, because you know you are dead wrong, you are guilty of what you are being charged with. It is that simple.

The questions that I have asked over and over with no response, are one "Why is the debt increase made at the beginning of February, 2009 being attributed to President Obama? What did he do in the first 30 days that added a trillion plus to the national debt?

The Great Recession job loss bottomed out in July, 2009. What did he do from Jan, 2009 to July, 2009 that places the job losses in his side of the fence?

I have stated many times "figures lie, and liars figure". Anyone even tries to place the blame on President Obama for the tragic things occurred form Jan, 2009 to Sept, 2009 is the worse kind of liar.

[Guest]

This will probably be my last post here. I am getting a standing ovation. I am so happy. I am following the lead of the person that started posting here in 2007, and has left in discussed. This isn't an open political forum. It is a love fest between closed minded far right Republicans. When common sense, and basic math are totally ignored, because they don't support the far right's total nonsense, nothing can penetrate the cement that occupies the space between the far right's ears. Anyone that tries is on a fool's errand.

They use deficit, and debt interchangeably. How can you respond, when you have no idea which one they are referring to? You can't. The debt has gone up, and the deficit by year under President Obama has gone down. It is that simple. Anyone that tries to dispute this, probably can't find his ass with both of his hands.

Right! You want me to do my own research on what Supreme Court directives President Obama has ignored. That's funny. It truly is. What are you hoping for? That I can actually find something that supports your stupid comment?

Guilt by silence! When you are called out on something, and you don't respond, because you know you are dead wrong, you are guilty of what you are being charged with. It is that simple.

The questions that I have asked over and over with no response, are one "Why is the debt increase made at the beginning of February, 2009 being attributed to President Obama? What did he do in the first 30 days that added a trillion plus to the national debt?

The Great Recession job loss bottomed out in July, 2009. What did he do from Jan, 2009 to July, 2009 that places the job losses in his side of the fence?

I have stated many times "figures lie, and liars figure". Anyone even tries to place the blame on President Obama for the tragic things occurred form Jan, 2009 to Sept, 2009 is the worse kind of liar.

It's obvious that school is out for the summer and you don't have a summer job. I doubt I need worry about your vote in the coming elections. Hope we gave you the attention you so desperately vy for. I also realize that they do not teach civics anymore and that explains today's youths' ignorance. I'm not going to bother answering your baiting questions, because it is sure obvious that you have been fed a bucket load of B....baloney. Glad to see that you are bored and leaving, perhaps to work on the next level of your video game. Have a great day.

[Guest]

Trump Dominates Fellow GOPers, But Trails Democrats In New Poll (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/quinnipiac-poll-july-trump-dominates?utm_content=buffer3e7f8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)


Donald Trump leads republicans in all of the latest polls including beating Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Florida. However, he trails Clinton by 12, Biden by 12, and Sanders by 8 in this latest Quinnipiac poll.

Ah, but you didn't bother to follow thru and read the questioning. I did notice in the questioning, that overwhelmingly the Independents stated that they would vote Republican if the elections were conducted today. Trump doesn't even matter. We have 17 good possibles and the Democrats have????? Oh yeah, a criminal with even the Dems not trusting her and find her dishonest. Or, a socialist that has no chance at all. Biden isn't even in the race so is not yet a factor. And the gent from MD, what's his name??? is still apologizing to everyone for not saying what they wanted to hear. The ONLY contender is Billary and even the Dems don't like her, more and more. Her approval rating is dropping as fast as the price of week old bread. Trump is a humorous diversion, but still a better pick than Billary. Without Independent voters, she has no chance.

[Guest]

Baiting questions! Nice try. Baiting into what the truth. I know that the far right can't answer the questions. Honesty is the furthest thing on their minds. Response one. Liar! Won't accept the truth. Guilty as charged.

Number two, Come on down.

[Guest]

Donald Trump has been running for president since 1988. He finally found a party desperate enough to take him seriously.

[Guest]

Pull my finger.......:click: :a20:

[Guest]

This will probably be my last post here. I am getting a standing ovation. I am so happy. I am following the lead of the person that started posting here in 2007, and has left in discussed. This isn't an open political forum. It is a love fest between closed minded far right Republicans. When common sense, and basic math are totally ignored, because they don't support the far right's total nonsense, nothing can penetrate the cement that occupies the space between the far right's ears. Anyone that tries is on a fool's errand.

They use deficit, and debt interchangeably. How can you respond, when you have no idea which one they are referring to? You can't. The debt has gone up, and the deficit by year under President Obama has gone down. It is that simple. Anyone that tries to dispute this, probably can't find his ass with both of his hands.

Right! You want me to do my own research on what Supreme Court directives President Obama has ignored. That's funny. It truly is. What are you hoping for? That I can actually find something that supports your stupid comment?

Guilt by silence! When you are called out on something, and you don't respond, because you know you are dead wrong, you are guilty of what you are being charged with. It is that simple.

The questions that I have asked over and over with no response, are one "Why is the debt increase made at the beginning of February, 2009 being attributed to President Obama? What did he do in the first 30 days that added a trillion plus to the national debt?

The Great Recession job loss bottomed out in July, 2009. What did he do from Jan, 2009 to July, 2009 that places the job losses in his side of the fence?

I have stated many times "figures lie, and liars figure". Anyone even tries to place the blame on President Obama for the tragic things occurred form Jan, 2009 to Sept, 2009 is the worse kind of liar.

Probably? Be sure to let us know when you decide.
Of course it is so easy to say and then come back and play as "guest"!

Bye.

[Guest]

This will probably be my last post here. I am getting a standing ovation. I am so happy. I am following the lead of the person that started posting here in 2007, and has left in discussed.

I believe you meant "disgust" not discussed. Ordinarily I wouldn't point out such things, but when a post rambles on accusing others of being stupid I can't help myself :loco:

Getting on topic, why do so many of you see Donald Trump as a threat? Why is a self-made billionaire being treated like he is a fool? Has he said anything untrue? I find his lack of rhetoric refreshing.

[Guest]

I believe you meant "disgust" not discussed. Ordinarily I wouldn't point out such things, but when a post rambles on accusing others of being stupid I can't help myself :loco:

Getting on topic, why do so many of you see Donald Trump as a threat? Why is a self-made billionaire being treated like he is a fool? Has he said anything untrue? I find his lack of rhetoric refreshing.

:thumbup::thumbup::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Guest]

Well I haven't been on these pages for sometime now and brought myself up to date by reading each and every post and I have concluded that there is validation that Admin was right in the manner in which they structure Political Talk.
One can't tell the numbers of individuals contributing but there are some really nasty comments on this thread that have nothing to do with this topic.

Since there is nothing of redeeming value I am done with this thread.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Ah, but you didn't bother to follow thru and read the questioning. I did notice in the questioning, that overwhelmingly the Independents stated that they would vote Republican if the elections were conducted today. Trump doesn't even matter. We have 17 good possibles and the Democrats have????? Oh yeah, a criminal with even the Dems not trusting her and find her dishonest. Or, a socialist that has no chance at all. Biden isn't even in the race so is not yet a factor. And the gent from MD, what's his name??? is still apologizing to everyone for not saying what they wanted to hear. The ONLY contender is Billary and even the Dems don't like her, more and more. Her approval rating is dropping as fast as the price of week old bread. Trump is a humorous diversion, but still a better pick than Billary. Without Independent voters, she has no chance.

So to recap; we have a criminal beating Trump in the polls, a socialist that very few people have ever heard of beating Trump in the polls, and a guy who is not even running beating Trump in the polls, and Donald Trump is way ahead of every other republican candidate in the polls. It looks like it well be vewy, vewy quiet around here the day after the elections.

[Guest]

So to recap; we have a criminal beating Trump in the polls, a socialist that very few people have ever heard of beating Trump in the polls, and a guy who is not even running beating Trump in the polls, and Donald Trump is way ahead of every other republican candidate in the polls. It looks like it well be vewy, vewy quiet around here the day after the elections.

Well, at least you have captured the character of those candidates on the left.

You cannot change you character before the elections, but polls sure will.

Congrats on your openness about the criminal, socialist and what's his name.

[Guest]

For a party that holds the Constitution so near and dear to their hearts, maybe they should relax their hands a little and read the Holy Grail. Why crime was Hillary tried and convicted of?

That socialist, that no one has heard of, is drawing bigger crowds than Trump. You know the person, who as made sure that everyone has heard of him. If they haven't, he will take his name off his buildings, and make his name much larger on them.

[Guest]

The question posed some 100 posts ago was if Donald Trump does not get the Republican nomination, will he run as as third party candidate and thus hand the victory to the Democratic candidate?

Trump is an extremely vain person and just might do that out of spite.

He will not be the Republican nominee.

Victory to the Democratic Party!!!

[Guest]

The question posed some 100 posts ago was if Donald Trump does not get the Republican nomination, will he run as as third party candidate and thus hand the victory to the Democratic candidate?

Trump is an extremely vain person and just might do that out of spite.

He will not be the Republican nominee.

Victory to the Democratic Party!!!

Gotta love it when a liberal uses the term "Democratic party" like it isn't an oxymoron. Where was the "Democratic" when pushing Obamacare through? Where was it when Obama signed unconstitutional executive orders? Should I go on? Nope, you can call them Democrats, but please stop calling them the Democratic party. That is soooo lame. My father was from the Democratic party. Even my father, before he passed away suggested that there was no more Democratic party. However, if you wish to call it the Socialist Democratic party, which I believe an Austrian made popular in Germany a while back, OK. ;)

[Guest]

For a party that holds the Constitution so near and dear to their hearts, maybe they should relax their hands a little and read the Holy Grail. Why crime was Hillary tried and convicted of?

That socialist, that no one has heard of, is drawing bigger crowds than Trump. You know the person, who as made sure that everyone has heard of him. If they haven't, he will take his name off his buildings, and make his name much larger on them.

"Why crime was Hillary tried and convicted of?" Or, "What crime"? None. That doesn't make her NOT a criminal. Criminal is defined as a person that has committed a crime. No one said she was a convicted criminal, or a convict, although she should be.

Better catch up on the polls. Hillary is dropping lower and lower every day. Trump IS a threat, but I wouldn't count him as winning the primary before he even participates in a debate.

The question should be, is Hillary a viable threat? She looking less and less threatening every week. She may not even win the primary for her party. She seems to think that she needn't even participate in the election process. Maybe she can get Pelosi to "Deem" her the elected president. I am sure that some of you remember Pelosi and her use of "Deem."

[Guest]

"Why crime was Hillary tried and convicted of?" Or, "What crime"? None. That doesn't make her NOT a criminal. Criminal is defined as a person that has committed a crime. No one said she was a convicted criminal, or a convict, although she should be.

Better catch up on the polls. Hillary is dropping lower and lower every day. Trump IS a threat, but I wouldn't count him as winning the primary before he even participates in a debate.

The question should be, is Hillary a viable threat? She looking less and less threatening every week. She may not even win the primary for her party. She seems to think that she needn't even participate in the election process. Maybe she can get Pelosi to "Deem" her the elected president. I am sure that some of you remember Pelosi and her use of "Deem."

With Hillary sinking (see WaPo article today about Huma's trouble) it's a matter of time before Joe Biden jumps in. I think Valerie Jarrett is torpedoing Hillary behind the scenes ... I think she'll drop out by early 2016 due to "medical" issues or whatever.

Raises the question ... who would be a better leader for the US ... Biden or Trump?

[Guest]

Warning! If Trump articulates what he and other Americans see as the real problems facing America he could win an election. Based on the rehash of most of the comments on this site, the real issues have to be dealt with by a legislative response that is supported by Congress and its constituents.

[Guest]

If Trump articulates. That certainly is Trump's real problem. Which is keeping everything to himself. The man won't say $hit, if he had a mouth full of it.

[Guest]

If Trump articulates. That certainly is Trump's real problem. Which is keeping everything to himself. The man won't say $hit, if he had a mouth full of it.

Another uninformed opinion. And yet the polls suggest that the country finds him more trustworthy than Billary. They may not like him, but we have seen how bad the current likable Entertainer-in-chief has done during his two terms.

[Guest]

Raises the question ... who would be a better leader for the US ... Biden or Trump?

In my opinion, either one would be better for the country than Clinton or Obama. Thank goodness Obama can't get his dream of a third term. Of course, I am sure that the country would sit back and allow him to do another unconstitutional executive order so he could pull off another term. After all, they are still gun shy from being accused of being bigots and racists.

[Guest]

I won't vote for Trump in the primary because he is too liberal. I will vote for him if he makes it to the general election.

[Guest]

Dems works have a major advantage, but that's why Trump is making the threat...so the Republican party feels pressured to name him as the Republican nominee. Twisted!