Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Political talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/)
-   -   Trump's Threat (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/trumps-threat-158323/)

Guest 07-28-2015 07:00 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1092630)
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 07-28-2015 07:01 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1092664)
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 07-28-2015 09:05 PM
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 07-29-2015 06:39 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1092664)
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 07-29-2015 07:10 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1092713)
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 07-29-2015 10:37 AM
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 07-29-2015 11:40 AM
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 07-29-2015 12:18 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1092880)
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 07-29-2015 06:05 PM
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 07-30-2015 07:17 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093091)
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 07-30-2015 07:44 AM
Trump Dominates Fellow GOPers, But Trails Democrats In New Poll


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 07-30-2015 09:00 AM
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 07-30-2015 09:41 AM
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 07-30-2015 10:29 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093243)
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 07-30-2015 10:51 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093194)
Trump Dominates Fellow GOPers, But Trails Democrats In New Poll


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 07-30-2015 10:56 AM
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 07-30-2015 11:05 AM
Donald Trump has been running for president since 1988. He finally found a party desperate enough to take him seriously.

Guest 07-30-2015 12:00 PM
Pull my finger.......:click: :a20:

Guest 07-30-2015 01:28 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093243)
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 07-30-2015 02:29 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093243)
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 07-30-2015 02:42 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093370)
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 07-30-2015 03:06 PM
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 07-30-2015 07:41 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093272)
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 07-30-2015 07:50 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093497)
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 07-30-2015 08:40 PM
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 07-30-2015 08:46 PM
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 08-01-2015 12:42 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093516)
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 08-01-2015 12:52 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1093512)
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 08-01-2015 01:16 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1094321)
"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 08-01-2015 01:32 PM
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 08-01-2015 05:40 PM
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 08-02-2015 07:48 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1094439)
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 08-02-2015 07:54 AM
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 08-06-2015 07:51 AM
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 08-11-2015 07:43 PM
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!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 AM.
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.