States that backed Trump are growing faster than ones that didn’t
-States that backed President Donald Trump in 2016 enjoyed faster growth last year than states that went for Hillary Clinton, a Yelp index shows.
-The ratings site studies business activity in local economies and uses that data to track the economy.
-Recent government data also shows Trump stages ahead in GDP.
Yelp’s gauge does not measure gross domestic product. Rather, it uses information gathered through its platform to gauge the strength of local economies through business survival and consumer interest. The site considers its measure to provide “a timely and accurate measure of a huge swath of the economy that is often missed by many major indicators.”
And I hear Texas might go purple this year. Libs have been moving to those states to bring sanity back to our politics.
I find it funny that liberals are moving to red states because they are sick of the taxes in the blue states. . .
Or the fact that a red state like I moved to gives two years of free college to students which attracts employers with good jobs. My daughter has four children. Can you imagine how much money she can save with eight free years of free college tuition between her four children?
Too bad more Republicans see that as some huge socialist give away rather than an investment in the future economy of their state. You see, an educated population attracts good employers.
But you know, socialism and all.....
And let me give you a clue about the taxes. In Ohio they don't tax food. Here they do. At just slightly less than 10%. See, the old "they have zero income tax" BS doesn't tell the entire story. You're still going to pay those taxes. Just in another form.
I think it's a little better structure because everyone has to pay into it. I mean it hits the poor just as much as it hits the wealthy. So I'm sure Republicans like that idea.
More people would move away from Trump if the DEMS could find even one single person to run against him. Right now both sides suck just like they did in 2016.
Trump becomes first president to speak at March for Life: 'Every life brings love'
President Trump on Friday became the first sitting president to address the annual March for Life rally in Washington, appealing to the anti-abortion movement with a call to protect the sanctity of life while accusing Democrats of becoming more "radical" on the issue.
The president, who for years was pro-choice, has since embraced a pro-life position and made clear on Friday that he plans to continue that agenda as he seeks reelection. Underscoring Trump's stance, his administration hours earlier moved to challenge California over a rule that mandates insurance plans cover elective abortion.
"It is my profound honor to be the first president in history to attend the March for Life," Trump told the crowd in Washington. "Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House. ... Every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting."
Except the kid that was unwanted and yet forced to be birthed by the Christian Taliban. Now residing in a home that is ill prepared to deal with it. While likely being poorly parented and generally resented. But screw choice, right. Cuz cell clumps is sacred. Derp.
Sounds like a parental problem. Or, more likely, a societal problem. What? Inconvenience me with a kid?
Where was the birth control?
I'm glad I didn't murder my son. He is too. Inconvenient at the time? Oh, yeah. I was that second semester college freshman that didn't experience dorm life, or much of college life, because of a decision I made earlier.
While I know society has become a 'throw away anything inconvenient to you' society, sometimes you need to own up to your choices. I did. JMO.
Sounds like a parental problem. Or, more likely, a societal problem. What? Inconvenience me with a kid?
Where was the birth control?
I'm glad I didn't murder my son. He is too. Inconvenient at the time? Oh, yeah. I was that second semester college freshman that didn't experience dorm life, or much of college life, because of a decision I made earlier.
While I know society has become a 'throw away anything inconvenient to you' society, sometimes you need to own up to your choices. I did. JMO.
Awesome. For you. I’m glad I never had to make the choice, help make the choice, or be around while the choice was made. I’m also incredibly glad I didn’t have kids. In the utopia in your mind those that don’t want them but end up with them just snap to and become the parent you became. I live in the real world where I see people that wanted them raise them like crap. I’m not holding out hope that the majority of the unwanted will end up raised any better. I see disaster ahead for the kids and society as a whole.
I respect your choice. I just want you to extend the choice to others.
If you do not want kids do not do the act that makes kids. That or get fixed. That is when the choice should have been made. Killing an unborn child that moves to the top of the woman's uterus to get away from the doctor is murder.
We need more Pro stars like Ben Watson. He has produced his own documentary about abortion. I loved his play on the field while he was with the Browns. What a class act he is.
I respect your choice. I just want you to extend the choice to others.
If you do not want kids do not do the act that makes kids. That or get fixed. That is when the choice should have been made. Killing an unborn child that moves to the top of the woman's uterus to get away from the doctor is murder.
I respect your choice. I just want you to extend the choice to others.
If you do not want kids do not do the act that makes kids. That or get fixed. That is when the choice should have been made. Killing an unborn child that moves to the top of the woman's uterus to get away from the doctor is murder.
It’s a cell clump.
Then why does it attempt tp get away inside the womb?
u made your choice when u spread your legs .... its not that complicated ...
Total misogyny here. Why is it solely the fault of the woman? It takes two. Maybe birth control creates a very negative reaction to her body. Why is it that she should have to be the one taking the pills or wearing an implant to alter her body? Why can't the man choose to wear protection, which has 0 effect on anybody's body?
So Trump - life long pro choice - flips to Pro Life. He's not religious. He's a pretty despicable human with no morals. So this is a vote getting move to appeal to the zealots on the Right and try to cement support. And it's embraced as if he's some kind of saint! LOL.
I respect your choice. I just want you to extend the choice to others.
If you do not want kids do not do the act that makes kids. That or get fixed. That is when the choice should have been made. Killing an unborn child that moves to the top of the woman's uterus to get away from the doctor is murder.
It’s a cell clump.
Then why does it attempt tp get away inside the womb?
.
Because it doesn’t. Man you non science folks are gullible.
“ Anyone who suggests a fetus “flees” or “fights” or tries to “get away” in response to pain or the fear of pain has not actually understood an abortion if they have seen one, doesn’t understand a thing about fetal development, and is wildly unaware of what happens during invasive diagnostic procedures. So they are either not informed — so not an expert –or are producing forced-birth propaganda. Those are the only two logical answers.”
Here’s trump’s ‘spiritual’ advisor praying to God for fetus’ termination. Pretty biblical if you ask me, right?
“Come on, I need you guys to pray,” she said. “We cancel every surprise from the witchcraft in the make-believe kingdom. Any hex, any spell, any witchcraft, any spirit of control, any Jezebel, anything that the enemy desires through spells, through witchcraft, through any way that is manipulation — demonic manipulation — we curse that. We break it according to the word of God in the name of Jesus.”
Then she called upon her audience to pray for strength to “come against the marine kingdom” and the “animal kingdom” and demanded that “all satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now.”
I respect your choice. I just want you to extend the choice to others.
If you do not want kids do not do the act that makes kids. That or get fixed. That is when the choice should have been made. Killing an unborn child that moves to the top of the woman's uterus to get away from the doctor is murder.
It’s a cell clump.
Then why does it attempt tp get away inside the womb?
.
Because it doesn’t. Man you non science folks are gullible.
“ Anyone who suggests a fetus “flees” or “fights” or tries to “get away” in response to pain or the fear of pain has not actually understood an abortion if they have seen one, doesn’t understand a thing about fetal development, and is wildly unaware of what happens during invasive diagnostic procedures. So they are either not informed — so not an expert –or are producing forced-birth propaganda. Those are the only two logical answers.”
You sit are wrong. The baby is alive at conception. It has a heart beat. Abortion is nothing more than a money making greed from some doctors and planned paernthood.
So taking away women's right to choose you're all for. But allowing men to continue to pro create while not supporting their children seems fine to you.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But you're a gander so you don't like the same accountability.
If men are making children they can't support, stop them from doing it.
Cause she’s the one that gets pregnant .... again, not real complicated .... *shrugs* ...
She only gets pregnant because of the man. It doesn't seem that complicated that we (men) should be held equally responsible for the act. To shrug it off and blame the woman is the usual male response.
Cause she’s the one that gets pregnant .... again, not real complicated .... *shrugs* ...
She only gets pregnant because of the man. It doesn't seem that complicated that we (men) should be held equally responsible for the act. To shrug it off and blame the woman is the usual male response.
I actually agree that men need to be held accountable. If they do not pay for their children they produce they should go to jail. Plain and simple.
The Woman and the Man are adults and responsible for their actions.
As adults they should not be getting or making pregnant unless they are starting a family.
The woman should be a responsibleadult, should not get pregnant and should not kill her child if she does. The man should be a responsibleadult in not getting a women pregnant, and by law, is subject to imprisonment when not paying his child support.
The child has zero responsibility yet the child is the one you support killing.
I’m not blaming women ... and i agree that men should be held accountable also ... no probs there ....
U act like the outcome of intercourse is a mystery ... u also act like i had a say in the fact only women can get pregnant ... trust me on this one, i had nuttin to do with with the re productive system ... nuttin at all .. *L* ...
When the man sticks it in he knows he could become a dad and all that comes with it ... just like when a women spreads her legs ... the potential outcome isn’t some mystery ...
If a women has sex she can get pregnant ... sorry if u don’t like that fact .... or the word accountability means nothing to U when it comes to personal accountability ....
We disagree ... i don’t like the law but it is the law so i respect it ... any shot u can respect my opinion? ...
A simple snip snip will do ... no need to go to extremes ...
That sounds reasonable.
This is a pretty tough subject for me. I'm 100% against abortion. My daughter was born when I was young. Her first child was born when she was young. There was never even talk of an abortion because it goes against everything we stand for.
George Takei: 'Star Trek' will be 'expecting some royalties' from Space Force logo
George Takei says the team behind "Star Trek" is "expecting some royalties" from the design of the Space Force logo unveiled by President Trump on Friday.
The commander in chief said he was "pleased to present" the emblem for the Space Force, the military service branch launched last month that's tasked with handling and carrying out space operations.
Takei — who played Hikaru Sulu on "Star Trek" — was one of several social media users to point out distinct similarities between the Space Force logo and that of the Starfleet, the fictional organization on the TV series.
Takei quipped to his 3 million Twitter followers:
A technology editor at CNBC also compared the two intergalactic designs:
Takei, 82, is one of Hollywood's most outspoken critics of Trump. He said last year that the country had hit "a new low" under the president.
Star Trek Actor George Takei Thinks He’s Entitled to Royalties for the Space Force Logo
By Matt Margolis
January 25, 2020
George Takei has been suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome for a long time and has probably spent more time in the past few years criticizing Trump than breathing. Nothing is too petty for Takei to gripe about when it comes to Trump. When Trump announced the new logo for the U.S. Space Force, it was inevitable that the has-been actor, mostly known for his portrayal of Lieutenant Sulu on Star Trek: The Original Series, would have an opinion.
Many people quickly noticed the similarities between the new Space Force logo and the logo of the fictional Starfleet Command from the Star Trek universe:
But, the insufferable George Takei’s criticism reached an extra level of absurd when he suggested that he and others connected to Star Trek were somehow entitled to royalties.
It’s possible that Takei was being tongue-in-cheek with his tweet, but I’m inclined to believe he was being serious. For starters, he’s technically accusing the federal government of trademark infringement, since the logo was created for the Space Force, and not the same as the Starfleet Command logo that has been licensed for use by the federal government. If it were, neither Takei nor any actors involved with Star Trek would not be entitled to any such royalties, as ViacomCBS owns Star Trek, and it would be up to them to make any claims of trademark infringement or claim any monetary compensation or royalties.
But here’s the other problem with George Takei’s accusation. Chris Burns at Slash Gear explains why the logos look similar. “[The Space Force] logo should look familiar. It would very much appear to be a reincarnation of its former self – not to mention a clear reminder of the origins and controversy over the original. And yes, that does very much look like the Star Trek Starfleet Command insignia, largely because all of these symbols are designed to mimic one another – for real.”
Michael Okuda, the longtime graphic designer and lead designer for Star Trek who designed the Starfleet Command seal, noted that his logo “was intended to be somewhat reminiscent of the NASA emblem.”
George Takei knows what NASA is, right?
Seriously though, George Takei could have simply acknowledged the logos as being homages to each other, and maybe even taken some pride in the similarities of the logos, but instead, he decided to use the news to make another silly attack on Trump.
So, no George, you aren’t entitled to any royalties. If you’re that desperate for money, go start a GoFundMe page.
He got to where he is with daddy's money and by lying. Once elected he began by lying about crowd size. He has not stopped since. Everyday he lies about something.
He doesn't care if he lies or by chance what he says happens to be true. It makes no difference to him as long as it benefits him.
Stormy he lied. Cohen lied for him. Then he lied about Cohen.
How can anyone including his wife believe a single thing he says? Cry wolf don and nobody believes you.
Except your base of gullible followers who if given the chance would enroll in trump university. Only that was a lie and was forced to shut down.
The healthcare president. I would gladly turn over my tax records but I am under audit. Mexico will pay for my big beautiful wall.
I don't know no Lev Parnas. That 90 minute video just ignore that.
Roll the tape. Then fact check. No. Don't bother because now it is accepted as an untruth. A kind word for a lie.
You can bank on what he says is a lie. He will lie as sure as the sun rises in the East.
But if he said the sun rises from the west; line up "the "gullibles" they will concur.
Hard to admit that you have believed his lies. So instead just keep going along like it doesn't matter.
He is an embarrassment to the office. In fact he has no concept of what the office is meant to portray.
If he had a patriotic bone in his body; he would resign.
And I hear Texas might go purple this year. Libs have been moving to those states to bring sanity back to our politics.
I doubt a single person has moved to change the course of politics..
They move because they were in a state where they voted for politicians who promised them utopia through higher taxes and greater government regulation... then when that doesn't work out for them they look around for a state with lower taxes and less regulation and they move there... then when they get there they vote for the same kinds of politicians they voted for before that killed their previous state...
Bad policies don't suddenly work just because you went to a different state.
Texas is the archetypal conservative state, especially since it claims the mantle as having the most electoral votes for Republican candidates. Its fast growing economy and population are signs that its small government approach works. However, there is compelling evidence that in addition to data showing Texas is being pushed to the left thanks to migration from blue states, internal state migration is also changing the political map.
There are more than just interstate and international factors turning Texas blue. Like a variety of states with vibrant rural and urban areas within their borders, Texas itself is surprisingly divided. As a result, internal migration within the state itself provides as much pressure toward its future division as Californians and Mexican immigrants. On the whole, rural areas across the country are losing density. The rural population of the United States is about 60 million, almost exactly the same as it stood at the end of World War Two. The result is that this share of the total population has dropped from nearly half of the country back then to just under a fifth today. The urban population of the United States, meanwhile, has almost tripled.
Young people generally leave these sparse regions for job opportunities and education. This resulting “brain drain” often leaves an imbalance in age groups, with a rapidly aging rural population and decreasing share of educated young people. Many of the houses of formerly growing families in the state are inhabited by retirees rather than by members of the next generation. Despite Texas consistently ranking as the number one state for domestic migration, it is also home to 90 counties losing population.
This trend causes political shifts. Older rural voters tend to become more conservative, while younger voters tend to become increasingly liberal as they move to the cities for work and school. Millennials and Generation Z often bear the markers of new members of the Democratic Party. They are unmarried, childless, saddled with student loan debt, and do not own any property. This happens both among young people moving from red states to blue ones, and also from red counties to blue countries. In each case, the important factor is not the existing politics of the state. It is that when someone moves to a big city, his or her politics sharply skews to the left.
The concentration of young people in Texas moving from smaller to larger counties, sharply leaning to the left, and becoming more politically active brings on increasing electoral importance to cities such as San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and Austin. This growth by leaps and bounds means that the political weight of cities is increasing more rapidly than that of rural areas. Whether it be a portion of the Texas electorate or state and federal redistricting, the major cities could soon have veto power over the wishes of the rural areas of the state, similar to that of Chicago or New York City.
The coming blue wave in Texas has already started. Democrats won more than a dozen seats in the state legislature in the 2018 election and even threatened the Senate seat held by Ted Cruz. The combination of sharply Democratic cities and suburban areas shading blue is a long run political disaster in the making for Republicans. We are fortunate enough to view the demographic changes in Texas in detail as a warning and potential model for other states. Any state with stagnant or declining rural areas and dominant or growing urban regions could also suffer a similar fate.
The 2020 election is not likely to hand Texas away from Republicans, but as I have previously written, it may be close enough to force Republicans to expend resources there. The growth of urban and suburban locales will play a major role in redistricting after the census. On the one hand, Texas will gain two or three seats in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, many changes in the state house after the 2020 election will allow for more competitive seats leaning toward Democrats. Left wingers have already made it a goal to flip the Texas state house blue, and are raking in millions of dollars in campaign donations from liberals outside the state.
If the census rearranges the legislature toward a marginal advantage for cities, and the next several years experience migration figures similar to recent history, the results will be striking. Texas is setting itself up to be a victim of its own success. It has a growing economy and booming cities backed by technology, oil, and gas that are all magnets. The movement of young Texans to cities will be a significant factor in the potential obituary of the Republican Party in the state. Since it has not been written just yet, there is still a chance to keep Texas red, and the national economy alive.
Kristin Tate is a libertarian writer and an analyst for Young Americans for Liberty. She is an author whose latest book is “How Do I Tax Thee? A Field Guide to the Great American Rip-Off.” Follow her on Twitter @KristinBTate.
Texas Democrats roll out plan to win state House in November
Texas Democrats are unveiling a new strategy in the hope of taking control of the state House this November for the first time in nearly two decades.
The Texas Democratic Party and Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee on Monday released a list of 22 state House seats they will target in November, with the ultimate goal of winning nine of the seats to regain control of the lower chamber.
The plan shows how Democrats in the state are hoping to build on the gains they made during the 2018 midterms.
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) came within 3 percentage points of unseating Sen. Ted Cruz (R) and in the process won nine state districts that are currently represented in the state House by GOP lawmakers. In another 13 state House districts, O’Rourke came within single digits of Cruz.
Democrats also picked up 12 state House seats in 2018, bringing them within striking distance for this election cycle.
One of these districts is Texas’s 28th, where O’Rourke hauled in over 48 percent of the vote. The 28th is part of Fort Bend County, which is home to Houston suburbs such as Sugar Land and Missouri City. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won Fort Bend County in 2016 by 7 points. It was the first time that a Democratic presidential candidate had carried the county since former President Lyndon B. Johnson did in 1964.
The 28th District has a special election for its House seat on Tuesday, the first opportunity for Democrats to see if their strategy is paying off. While the winner will only serve out the remainder of the state House’s current term and the seat will be up for grabs again in November, the race has garnered national attention. Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg recently canvassed for Democrat Eliz Markowitz, who is running against Republican Gary Gates, earlier in the month.
“We're looking forward to the results on Tuesday, great momentum point for us, but the work has already begun for November,” said Manny Garcia, executive director of the Texas Democratic Party.
One thing that has benefited the Democrats’ effort is the influx of new registered voters in the state. Since 2012, over 3 million new voters have been registered, with the majority coming in the past couple of years. Specifically, since Cruz narrowly beat O’Rourke in 2018, nearly a million new voters have been registered.
The growth is particularly evident in suburban areas. For example, in Harris County — which encompasses most of the Houston metropolitan area — voter registration has boomed 14 percent since 2014. In 2016, Clinton won Harris County by 12 percent and O’Rourke won it by 17 in 2018.
All of this has led to a jump in financial support from national Democratic organizations, such as the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.
“We’ve gone from a period in time where we couldn’t get a phone call back from the national party to now, being a period of time where [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – Texas] has the only regional field pod in the country,” Garcia said.
Abhi Rahman, the state party’s director of strategic communications, said that the funding that the state party has received this election cycle is "more than ever before."
Regaining the House in November could also allow Texas Democrats to influence the redistricting in the state. After the 2020 census, state districts in Texas will be redrawn. When redistricting happened in the state at the beginning of the last decade, Republicans controlled both the state House and Senate.
Garcia says that if Democrats took back the House, they would be able ensure district maps more accurately represent the demographics of the suburban areas that have changed significantly since the lines were last drawn.
“We need a different voice that understands Texas’ rising electorate,” Garcia said.
“We need to make sure that the legislature brings in a redistricting process that is reflective of what that community actually looks like now and that best respects Texas’ voters.”
Massive crowds form for Trump's New Jersey rally amid impeachment fight
Sprawling lines were forming overnight in the Jersey Shore destination of Wildwood in anticipation of President Trump’s campaign rally scheduled for late Tuesday, in a show of support by Trump's faithful amid the bruising impeachment fight back in Washington.
The scene is striking considering Jersey’s political reputation as a blue state.
Where’s all you conservatives at? But we all know if a democrat wins The election, All the tea party losers will come out the woodwork whining about finances again.
There is an old saying that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, and we’ve learned that again with the Congressional Budget Office and its latest highly misleading fiscal forecast.
For years, we’ve been trying to get the CBO to use real-world scoring that reflects how businesses, workers and financial markets react to changes in tax rates. But no go.
This is why the left is having a field day with the CBO forecast that deficits under President Trump will average a trillion dollars a year for the next decade. This is supposed to be a result of Mr. Trump’s tax cuts, but hold on here. Take a look at the nearby chart. It shows the deficit forecast with and without the tax cuts. They are effectively the same.
Mr. Trump didn’t create $1 trillion deficits, he inherited them from the grand maestro of debt spending, Barack Obama. President Obama invented and then perfected the concept of 13-digit borrowing. His deficits in his first term reached $1.5 trillion — an Olympic record of fiscal recklessness.
Is there anything more hypocritical than liberals, who supported Mr. Obama’s policies that ran the debt from about $11 trillion to almost $20 trillion, now fainting over runaway deficit spending? Yes, Chuck Schumer, there is gambling going on here at this casino.
The CBO says that the deficit will be about $1.5 trillion higher because of policy changes. Almost 40 percent of that is the inexcusable omnibus spending bill — a bipartisan raid of the federal cookie jar.
About $1 trillion of the higher borrowing over 10 years is due to the tax cut. By the way, this is the lowest estimate for the “cost” of the tax cut, we’ve seen. That $1 trillion revenue loss is out of almost $40 trillion of expected revenue. That’s a 2.5 percent tax cut — which is hardly the fire hose of lost revenue that is being depicted.
At the very least we can dispense with the hyper-inflated rhetoric of $3, $4 and $5 trillion debt increases due to the tax cut — that are thrown around in the media from liberal interest groups.
The fantastical claim of the CBO is that the economy will grow by only 1.9 percent annual growth for the next decade. (This is up a smidgeon from its 1.8 percent prediction at the start of the Trump presidency.) To be fair, CBO’s growth estimate is in line with most of the Blue Chip forecasters as well.
That prediction makes no sense. GDP growth averaged 1.95 percent annually under Mr. Obama — and nearly everything he did on the economy was anti-growth.
Now we have a president who is cutting tax rates, chopping down regulations, promoting massive new energy and mineral development, reforming welfare to get people into the workforce, redesigning trade policy to get better deals for American companies and products — and this is going to only give us the measly rate of growth we had under Mr. Obama?
No. The core principle of Trumponomics is to attain at least 3 percent growth. Every policy is focused like a laser beam on that goal. It’s not a shot to the moon. The average growth rate of the U.S. economy for the past century is about 3.3 percent.
In a recent economic analysis, Rob Arnott, founder of Research Affiliates, and I recalculated the CBO numbers and plugged in 3 percent growth, not 1.9 percent growth.
Guess what? The debt to GDP ratio goes down, down, down every year. Instead of a horrific debt to GDP ratio of 150 percent in 20 years, that ratio actually falls to about 50 percent — very managable.
With long-term growth of GDP of 3 percent all the entitlement deficits begin to disappear as well. This is because tax revenues overwhelm spending over time with 3 percent GDP growth. It’s called the power of compound interest.
The point here is that CBO’s creaky computer models begin with the firm conviction that Trumponomics won’t work and then surprise, it cranks out a conclusion that Mr. Trump’s policies won’t work. This is what passes for rigorous analysis these days.
• Stephen Moore, a columnist for The Washington Times, is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He served as a senior economic advisor to the Trump campaign.
Massive crowds form for Trump's New Jersey rally amid impeachment fight
Sprawling lines were forming overnight in the Jersey Shore destination of Wildwood in anticipation of President Trump’s campaign rally scheduled for late Tuesday, in a show of support by Trump's faithful amid the bruising impeachment fight back in Washington.
The scene is striking considering Jersey’s political reputation as a blue state.
I wouldn't say that about 40. He's very knowledgeable about how to troll the left in PP on DT. And he probably knows all the comings and goings at the trailer park too. So don't dis his skills like that, he has mad skills, a regular trumpian pwner.
Trump signs USMCA, paving way for job market boom 'We’re restoring America’s industrial might like never before'
President Trump signed the historic United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, replacing the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement that he called a "disaster."
The USMCA, which is the biggest trade deal of all-time, covers more than $1.3 trillion of commerce, and is the second major trade deal secured by the Trump administration this year. The agreement has already been ratified by Mexico, but not yet by Canada.
Trump signs USMCA, paving way for job market boom 'We’re restoring America’s industrial might like never before'
President Trump signed the historic United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, replacing the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement that he called a "disaster."
The USMCA, which is the biggest trade deal of all-time, covers more than $1.3 trillion of commerce, and is the second major trade deal secured by the Trump administration this year. The agreement has already been ratified by Mexico, but not yet by Canada.
So can you tellus what's actually in it? How it differs from NAFTA? Or are headlines and Trump speak all you have?
Once fully implemented, the USMCA is expected to lift U.S. gross domestic product by as many as 1.2 percentage points and create up to 589,000 jobs, according to the International Trade Commission.
The signing of the USMCA comes nearly two weeks after Trump inked an initial trade deal with China. Combined, the two agreements encompass more than $2 trillion worth of trade and could add as much as 1.7 percentage points to U.S. economic growth. The U.S. economy expanded at a 2.1 percent pace in the three months through September.
So once again you have no idea what's in the deal. You're just regurgitating repeated opinions of what it "could do". Two trillion worth of trade? How does that compare with the current trade numbers?
No wonder people overseas rarely wants anything built by Americans. Hell, the illegals don’t even need to climb the damn thing(which is stupid easy). Just wait for it to blow over lmfaoooooo
No wonder people overseas rarely wants anything built by Americans. Hell, the illegals don’t even need to climb the damn thing(which is stupid easy). Just wait for it to blow over lmfaoooooo
Obviously, Trump didn't build the wall himself, But look at the construction company that was hired.. I don't know who they are, but if you check and find out they were hand picked by Trump, then you got something,
Also, if you read the article, it states that the was wasn't complete, it was under construction.
I'm not a construction expert, but I would think that it's important to secure your build AS YOU BUILD... Just out of the box thinking.
No wonder people overseas rarely wants anything built by Americans. Hell, the illegals don’t even need to climb the damn thing(which is stupid easy). Just wait for it to blow over lmfaoooooo
Maybe he hired the same construction company that built his hair?
Its interesting watching them root against themselves and our country .... cwazy i tell ya, just cwazy ...
No one is rooting against ourselves. We’re rooting for all the trump fanboys to finally see what a joke trump is. This is just another hilarious example of his ineptitude and wastefulness.
The whistleblower's attorney, Mark Zaid, openly admitted back in 2017 that a "coup" had started against the president from within the administration, and that CNN's coverage would play a "key role" in the effort.
He also openly solicited intelligence community members to help impeach and "get rid" of Trump, years before Trump's call with Urkaine's leader that triggered the current impeachment proceedings.
Additionally, Zaid acknowledged that the whistleblower had contact with a prominent Democratic presidential contender, amid reporters that he had served closely with Joe Biden when he was vice president. Trump's alleged pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden is at the center of the current probe.
No wonder people overseas rarely wants anything built by Americans. Hell, the illegals don’t even need to climb the damn thing(which is stupid easy). Just wait for it to blow over lmfaoooooo
Maybe he hired the same construction company that built his hair?
That is not actually true. The coup text came as a reaction to trump firing someone (I don't remember who). He texted the coup has started. Meaning the Trump was the one running the coup of the government.
That is not actually true. The coup text came as a reaction to trump firing someone (I don't remember who). He texted the coup has started. Meaning the Trump was the one running the coup of the government.
By the looks of it, he was right.
Facts do not matter to 40 and his cronies. Blind faith and the regurgitation of whatever Trump says is all that is required. When corrected (which is continuously) 40 will switch to troll mode and simply say really asinine one liners intended to deflect or annoy. . . . Resistance is futile. Ignoring is recommended.
Now your back in PP - you want to try and review how you brought up and talked about "the other Billionaire in PP threads" and then claim you didn't bring up Trump? Remember that blatant lie in football talk?
Trump Campaign Spent $1.8 Million On Trump's Own Businesses, Records Reveal
HuffPost Mary Papenfuss February 1, 2020
Donald Trump’s reelection campaign steered a total of $1.8 million to the president’s businesses last year, according to the latest campaign finance filings.
The Trump camp spent close to $200,000 on Trump-owned properties and businesses in the last quarter of 2019 alone, according to an analysis of the Federal Election Commission filings by the Center for Responsive Politics and The New York Times.
There were 150 payments to Trump “entities and properties,” according to the Times.
Money to Trump businesses included several payments to Trump Tower, Trump International Hotel in Washington, Trump Restaurants, the Trump Hotel Collection and the Trump Corporation, according to the records.
Anna Massoglia ✔ @annalecta · Jan 31, 2020 Trump 's new @FEC disclosure shows his re-election campaign spending $1.4+ million on legal consulting & lawyer fees in the 4th quarter of 2019 alone—roughly $12.4 MILLION since @realDonaldTrump became President facing Mueller investigation, Stormy Daniels lawsuit, impeachment... View image on Twitter
Anna Massoglia ✔ @annalecta New @FEC filing: Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign paid $194,247.57 to Trump family members, properties & businesses in the final quarter of last year alone—steering over $1.8 MILLION in donations from presidential campaign donors to @realDonaldTrump's private interests.
The campaign also spent more than $1.4 million on legal fees in the final quarter of the year to defend Trump against various charges. That makes close to $12.4 million in total the campaign has spent on various cases against him, including by former alleged lover Stormy Daniels, fraud lawsuits against Trump University, impeachment, and the investigation into Russian election interference by former special counsel Robert Mueller.
Some of those legal fees went to the Trump Organization.
Anna Massoglia ✔ @annalecta Trump 's new @FEC disclosure shows his re-election campaign spending $1.4+ million on legal consulting & lawyer fees in the 4th quarter of 2019 alone—roughly $12.4 MILLION since @realDonaldTrump became President facing Mueller investigation, Stormy Daniels lawsuit, impeachment...
The Trump campaign spent $9 million during the last three months of 2019, mostly on digital ads.
Trump once bragged that if he ever ran for president, he would likely make money doing it. “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it,” he told Fortune magazine in 2000.
You can check out the figures for all the presidential candidates here. The FEC site can be found here.
Montana state GOP lawmaker says Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed, shot
A Republican state representative from Montana is coming under fire from his own party after he reportedly claimed earlier this weekend that the Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed or shot.
According to the Billings Gazette, state Rep. Rodney Garcia (R-Mont.) first made the remark after expressing concerns about socialists he said were “entering our government” and their presence in his district at an event on Friday.
He reportedly reiterated his remarks when pressed about his previous comments in an interview with a reporter for the local publication on Saturday.
“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” the Montana Republican said.
Though he was reportedly unable to show what portion of the Constitution he was citing to back his claim, he continued to double down on his comments in the interview, saying, “They’re enemies of the free state.”
“What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?” he continued.
“I agree with my Constitution. That’s what makes us free. We’re not a democracy, we’re a Republic Constitution,” he also said.
The Montana Republican Party criticized Garcia in a statement to The Associated Press on Sunday.
“Under no circumstance is violence against someone with opposing political views acceptable,” Spenser Merwin, executive director of the group, told the news agency.
“It’s disappointing that this isolated incident took away from the weekend’s events which showcased the strength of our statewide candidates and the importance of the upcoming election,” he added.
The Montana Democratic Party also took aim at the Republican lawmaker, who reportedly has a history of local controversies, according to the Billings Gazette.
"Rodney Garcia has brazenly flaunted his conviction for a domestic dispute, called single moms deadbeats, and was only elected because he created an illegal campaign cash scam,” Robyn Driscoll, who chairs the party, told the Billings Gazette. “Now he's publicly calling for people to be shot.”
Garcia's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.
Montana state GOP lawmaker says Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed, shot
A Republican state representative from Montana is coming under fire from his own party after he reportedly claimed earlier this weekend that the Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed or shot.
According to the Billings Gazette, state Rep. Rodney Garcia (R-Mont.) first made the remark after expressing concerns about socialists he said were “entering our government” and their presence in his district at an event on Friday.
He reportedly reiterated his remarks when pressed about his previous comments in an interview with a reporter for the local publication on Saturday.
“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” the Montana Republican said.
Though he was reportedly unable to show what portion of the Constitution he was citing to back his claim, he continued to double down on his comments in the interview, saying, “They’re enemies of the free state.”
“What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?” he continued.
“I agree with my Constitution. That’s what makes us free. We’re not a democracy, we’re a Republic Constitution,” he also said.
The Montana Republican Party criticized Garcia in a statement to The Associated Press on Sunday.
“Under no circumstance is violence against someone with opposing political views acceptable,” Spenser Merwin, executive director of the group, told the news agency.
“It’s disappointing that this isolated incident took away from the weekend’s events which showcased the strength of our statewide candidates and the importance of the upcoming election,” he added.
The Montana Democratic Party also took aim at the Republican lawmaker, who reportedly has a history of local controversies, according to the Billings Gazette.
"Rodney Garcia has brazenly flaunted his conviction for a domestic dispute, called single moms deadbeats, and was only elected because he created an illegal campaign cash scam,” Robyn Driscoll, who chairs the party, told the Billings Gazette. “Now he's publicly calling for people to be shot.”
Garcia's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.
I think shot is too harsh. But jailed? Socialists have always been enemies to the Constitution. Socialism at it's core is communism and takes freedom from people.
Montana state GOP lawmaker says Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed, shot
A Republican state representative from Montana is coming under fire from his own party after he reportedly claimed earlier this weekend that the Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed or shot.
According to the Billings Gazette, state Rep. Rodney Garcia (R-Mont.) first made the remark after expressing concerns about socialists he said were “entering our government” and their presence in his district at an event on Friday.
He reportedly reiterated his remarks when pressed about his previous comments in an interview with a reporter for the local publication on Saturday.
“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” the Montana Republican said.
Though he was reportedly unable to show what portion of the Constitution he was citing to back his claim, he continued to double down on his comments in the interview, saying, “They’re enemies of the free state.”
“What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?” he continued.
“I agree with my Constitution. That’s what makes us free. We’re not a democracy, we’re a Republic Constitution,” he also said.
The Montana Republican Party criticized Garcia in a statement to The Associated Press on Sunday.
“Under no circumstance is violence against someone with opposing political views acceptable,” Spenser Merwin, executive director of the group, told the news agency.
“It’s disappointing that this isolated incident took away from the weekend’s events which showcased the strength of our statewide candidates and the importance of the upcoming election,” he added.
The Montana Democratic Party also took aim at the Republican lawmaker, who reportedly has a history of local controversies, according to the Billings Gazette.
"Rodney Garcia has brazenly flaunted his conviction for a domestic dispute, called single moms deadbeats, and was only elected because he created an illegal campaign cash scam,” Robyn Driscoll, who chairs the party, told the Billings Gazette. “Now he's publicly calling for people to be shot.”
Garcia's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.
I think shot is too harsh. But jailed? Socialists have always been enemies to the Constitution. Socialism at it's core is communism and takes freedom from people.
Montana state GOP lawmaker says Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed, shot
A Republican state representative from Montana is coming under fire from his own party after he reportedly claimed earlier this weekend that the Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed or shot.
According to the Billings Gazette, state Rep. Rodney Garcia (R-Mont.) first made the remark after expressing concerns about socialists he said were “entering our government” and their presence in his district at an event on Friday.
He reportedly reiterated his remarks when pressed about his previous comments in an interview with a reporter for the local publication on Saturday.
“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” the Montana Republican said.
Though he was reportedly unable to show what portion of the Constitution he was citing to back his claim, he continued to double down on his comments in the interview, saying, “They’re enemies of the free state.”
“What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?” he continued.
“I agree with my Constitution. That’s what makes us free. We’re not a democracy, we’re a Republic Constitution,” he also said.
The Montana Republican Party criticized Garcia in a statement to The Associated Press on Sunday.
“Under no circumstance is violence against someone with opposing political views acceptable,” Spenser Merwin, executive director of the group, told the news agency.
“It’s disappointing that this isolated incident took away from the weekend’s events which showcased the strength of our statewide candidates and the importance of the upcoming election,” he added.
The Montana Democratic Party also took aim at the Republican lawmaker, who reportedly has a history of local controversies, according to the Billings Gazette.
"Rodney Garcia has brazenly flaunted his conviction for a domestic dispute, called single moms deadbeats, and was only elected because he created an illegal campaign cash scam,” Robyn Driscoll, who chairs the party, told the Billings Gazette. “Now he's publicly calling for people to be shot.”
Garcia's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.
I think shot is too harsh. But jailed? Socialists have always been enemies to the Constitution. Socialism at it's core is communism and takes freedom from people.
Not so fast, liberty includes freedom from oppression of political views (which include communism and socialism), and our Democratic government has taken its share of "freedoms" from people. The people are afforded the ability to democratically choose socialism/communism by the Constitution and its inherent setup of being amendable.
Montana state GOP lawmaker says Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed, shot
A Republican state representative from Montana is coming under fire from his own party after he reportedly claimed earlier this weekend that the Constitution calls for socialists to be jailed or shot.
According to the Billings Gazette, state Rep. Rodney Garcia (R-Mont.) first made the remark after expressing concerns about socialists he said were “entering our government” and their presence in his district at an event on Friday.
He reportedly reiterated his remarks when pressed about his previous comments in an interview with a reporter for the local publication on Saturday.
“So actually in the Constitution of the United States (if) they are found guilty of being a socialist member you either go to prison or are shot,” the Montana Republican said.
Though he was reportedly unable to show what portion of the Constitution he was citing to back his claim, he continued to double down on his comments in the interview, saying, “They’re enemies of the free state.”
“What do we do with our enemies in war? In Vietnam, (Afghanistan), all those. What did we do?” he continued.
“I agree with my Constitution. That’s what makes us free. We’re not a democracy, we’re a Republic Constitution,” he also said.
The Montana Republican Party criticized Garcia in a statement to The Associated Press on Sunday.
“Under no circumstance is violence against someone with opposing political views acceptable,” Spenser Merwin, executive director of the group, told the news agency.
“It’s disappointing that this isolated incident took away from the weekend’s events which showcased the strength of our statewide candidates and the importance of the upcoming election,” he added.
The Montana Democratic Party also took aim at the Republican lawmaker, who reportedly has a history of local controversies, according to the Billings Gazette.
"Rodney Garcia has brazenly flaunted his conviction for a domestic dispute, called single moms deadbeats, and was only elected because he created an illegal campaign cash scam,” Robyn Driscoll, who chairs the party, told the Billings Gazette. “Now he's publicly calling for people to be shot.”
Garcia's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.
I think shot is too harsh. But jailed? Socialists have always been enemies to the Constitution. Socialism at it's core is communism and takes freedom from people.
This is the same way it began in Nazi Germany. People with opposing views become your enemy and must be punished for it.
I'm still waiting on a answer on how the greatest Democrat of them all can buy a 15 million house on the coast when all lefties know the coast will be under water in 10 years. And where does a community organizer get all his money?
Why is it such a crazy idea to want to live on the coast until it's gone if you will recover the money you invested? Why would you consider it any different than buying a home in tornado alley?
I mean if your home burns down, don't you have insurance to cover your loss?
If I knew something was going to be under water in 10 years I would not be putting my trust in a insurance co. If all coastal real estate is lost the insurance co will just say Nope. Like they have done many times before But good answer Pit Myself, I would buy a Coastal waterfront if I had 15 mil laying around. Whats next Pit. Is Al Gore going to start worrying about his own carbon footprint instead of everybody else?
It's pretty funny that I give you logical explanations for your questions and all you seem to do is ask more questions. You don't believe in climate change anyway. So why are all of your questions about the effects of climate change?
Look. you bring up Al Gore. Yet his impact on how people view climate change are in large part due to the awareness he bought to the issue before many were speaking out about it. In your world that means nothing.
If I had made $20 million, as Obama apparently has, I would not spend $15 million on a house. Anywhere.
I realize he, and Michelle, will and do have current and ongoing income. I still would not spend $15 million on a house. Especially a house that, if what we're told is true, will be under water before long.
Coming direct from Lewis Black who read a rant coming from a teacher who has a student who has a parent supporting the orange monkey:
" listen you little Nazi in training if you believe that the orange monkey in office has a clue about running this country you need to be sterilized because you are obviously to stupid to reproduce."
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas has collected more tax revenue than expected almost every month for more than two years, and Republicans are growing increasingly angry that Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly still insists that the state can't afford income tax cuts favored by the GOP-controlled Legislature.
The state Department of Revenue reported Monday that tax collections in January were nearly $60 million more than anticipated, a 9% surplus for the month. Since the current budget year began in July, tax collections have run nearly $111 million more than expectations — and that's after state officials and economists boosted revenue projections in November.
Kansas has seen tax collections beat expectations 31 of the past 32 months, dating back to June 2017, even as expectations have risen. Top Republicans believe a key reason is that some individuals and businesses are paying more in state income taxes because of changes in the federal tax code at the end of 2017.
Kelly vetoed two GOPbills cutting income taxes last year, and she's still urging lawmakers to hold off on making any changes in income tax laws this year. GOP lawmakers argue that she's allowed an unlegislated tax increase.
“It's obscene,” said Senate Vice President Jeff Longbine, a Republican from eastern Kansas who serves on his chamber's tax committee.
The extra dollars pour into the treasury and bulk up the state's cash reserves unless lawmakers and the governor decide this spring to spend them. The state began its current budget year in July with $1.1 billion in cash reserves — a little more than twice as much as what's legally required.
Kelly has proposed using more than half of the state's reserves to pay off bonds and other debts early. She also continues to argue that Kansas can't risk returning to the budget shortfalls that followed a nationally notorious experiment in slashing state income taxes under then-GOP Gov. Sam Brownback in 2012 and 2013.
Bipartisan legislative majorities reversed most of the Brownback-era cuts in 2017, the year before Kelly was elected governor. The near-automatic surpluses in monthly tax collections date to the same month lawmakers repudiated Brownback's policies.
Kelly spokeswoman Dena Sattler said lawmakers should wait for a council appointed by the governor to study the tax system to make its recommendations at the end of 2020, rather than pursue changes “that could potentially send Kansas right back into fiscal chaos.”
“Kansas needs a more thoughtful approach this time around,” Sattler said in an email Monday.
But unexpected individual and corporate tax revenues keep flowing into the state treasury. Revenues from those two sources are 3.3% ahead of expectations for the current budget year — and 9.2% higher than in the previous budget year.
“Returning some portion of those is more compelling,” said House Taxation Committee Chairman Steven Johnson, a Republican from western Kansas.
Kansas expected to collect nearly $666 million in revenues in January but collected more than $725 million. Since July 1, the state has collected $4.3 billion in taxes, when $4.2 billion was expected.
State officials have no good figure for what Republicans call the “windfall” from the federal tax changes, outside of a $60 million-a-year estimate for the burden faced by individual filers who previously could claim itemized deductions on their state returns but now cannot.
The federal changes championed by President Donald Trump generally cut income taxes but included policies that discourage people from claiming itemized deductions. Kansas law prevents individuals from itemizing on their state returns if they don't itemize on their federal returns.
Republicans argue that middle-class families the hardest, because wealthy ones have high enough deductions to still itemize on federal returns. The bills vetoed by Kelly contained provisions to address the issue.
“She increased taxes when she didn't have to increase taxes. We want to roll that back,” said House Majority Leader Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican. “She's just being disingenuous in what she's doing. It's not fair at all.”
Top Republicans also have sought to shield corporations' foreign income from taxation — and that's been a main talking point for Democrats as they've attacked GOP plans. Most Democrats so far appear likely to stick with Kelly if she vetoes another GOP tax bill, making it harder for Republicans to find the two-thirds majorities in both chambers to override her action.
And House Minority Leader Tom Sawyer, a Wichita Democrat, pointed to an announcement last month by aircraft parts supplier Spirit Aerosystems announced it was laying off 2,800 employees, or more than 20% of its Kansas workforce, mostly in Wichita.
“It's a good thing we've got some good money right now because it could turn lean here pretty fast,” Sawyer said.
____________
everybody with a brain called this when she won. A dem was gonna come in, fix the budget that the republicans completely destroyed under their control, and the GOP was gonna whine about the taxes being too high.
a democrat starts making progress on deficits, and all the GOP wants to do is spend the money like frat boys who just got daddy's credit card.
Looks like there is an issue with the Iowa caucus vote tabulation. How surprising...
"The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster. Nothing works, just like they ran the Country. Remember the 5 Billion Dollar Obamacare Website, that should have cost 2% of that. The only person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is “Trump”.
Looks like there is an issue with the Iowa caucus vote tabulation. How surprising...
"The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster. Nothing works, just like they ran the Country. Remember the 5 Billion Dollar Obamacare Website, that should have cost 2% of that. The only person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is “Trump”.
-Donald Trump
Not a chance fat trump wrote that. No spelling mistakes or grammar gaffs. Minimal self aggrandizing or general lies. He was probably stuffing KFC in his face with his tiny hands while watching Hannity. My guess is he handed his phone to an intern.
This would have been donny’s... “ the democratic carcass was a mess. Totally bad. They spent $111 bullion on the OBAMAcare webpage. Total waste of money. Not like my tax cuts. Amazing tax cuts weren’t they. I won Iowa just like the chiefs won Kansas. Congrats to me. “
Trump was caught on camera pretending to conduct an orchestra during the national anthem at his Super Bowl watch party Eliza Relman 18 hours ago
Since his election, President Trump has fanned the flames of a culture war over former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's practice of kneeling during the national anthem as a form of protest. But in an apparent contradiction of that stance, on Sunday the president himself was caught on camera pretending to conduct an orchestra as the anthem was being sung at the Super Bowl. The video footage shows Trump waving his hands around and pointing to guests at the event. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
On Monday morning, Fox and Friends tore into Beyoncé and Jay-Z for apparently staying seated during "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the Super Bowl on Sunday.
And since his election, President Donald Trump has fanned the flames of a culture war over former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's practice of kneeling during the national anthem as a form of protest against police brutality and social injustice.
"You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn't be playing — you shouldn't be there," Trump told "Fox and Friends" in a 2018 interview. "Maybe you shouldn't be in the country."
But in an apparent contradiction of that stance, on Sunday the president himself was caught on camera moving around and at one point pretending to conduct an orchestra as the anthem was being sung.
Trump watched the game at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where he held a formal party.
The footage, first reported by the Miami Herald, shows the president waving his hands around and pointing to guests.
First lady Melania Trump and their son, Barron, stood by with their hands over their hearts.
The video was reportedly filmed and posted to Instagram by a real-estate agent for a Russian-American company. Watch it below.
Trump was caught on camera pretending to conduct an orchestra during the national anthem at his Super Bowl watch party Eliza Relman 18 hours ago
Since his election, President Trump has fanned the flames of a culture war over former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's practice of kneeling during the national anthem as a form of protest. But in an apparent contradiction of that stance, on Sunday the president himself was caught on camera pretending to conduct an orchestra as the anthem was being sung at the Super Bowl. The video footage shows Trump waving his hands around and pointing to guests at the event. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
On Monday morning, Fox and Friends tore into Beyoncé and Jay-Z for apparently staying seated during "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the Super Bowl on Sunday.
And since his election, President Donald Trump has fanned the flames of a culture war over former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's practice of kneeling during the national anthem as a form of protest against police brutality and social injustice.
"You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn't be playing — you shouldn't be there," Trump told "Fox and Friends" in a 2018 interview. "Maybe you shouldn't be in the country."
But in an apparent contradiction of that stance, on Sunday the president himself was caught on camera moving around and at one point pretending to conduct an orchestra as the anthem was being sung.
Trump watched the game at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where he held a formal party.
The footage, first reported by the Miami Herald, shows the president waving his hands around and pointing to guests.
First lady Melania Trump and their son, Barron, stood by with their hands over their hearts.
The video was reportedly filmed and posted to Instagram by a real-estate agent for a Russian-American company. Watch it below.
Trump was caught on camera pretending to conduct an orchestra during the national anthem at his Super Bowl watch party
MY GOSH!!!
You should impeach him!
No one is saying that he should be impeached for this. Just more evidence of what a ridiculous person he is. How can you respect him let alone defend him?
She lost the election due to the electoral college. She also won the popular vote.
I know that's a difficult concept for you to comprehend.
Yes, it is like a baseball team out hitting their opponent but losing. Or a football team gaining more yards than their opponent but losing. Or a basketball team shooting a higher % than their opponent but losing. Guess what it is still losing!!!
Yes, it is like a baseball team out hitting their opponent but losing. Or a football team gaining more yards than their opponent but losing. Or a basketball team shooting a higher % than their opponent but losing.
It's actually like all of those teams scoring more points and losing.
Yes, it is like a baseball team out hitting their opponent but losing. Or a football team gaining more yards than their opponent but losing. Or a basketball team shooting a higher % than their opponent but losing.
It's actually like all of those teams scoring more points and losing.
Take away all those wacko votes in California and Trump also won the popular vote.
Please don’t allow them to move the goalposts by playing along ...
It actually just means that most voters didn't elect Trump. Since you're so good at math I didn't think it would be hard for you to understand.
Hmmmm ... it appears your grasp of vocabulary is right there with your math skills .. ...
They didn’t vote for him ... he was elected ... just like I didn’t vote for O but he was elected ...
PS. The popular vote is kinda like turnovers are to football ... u can win the turnover battle and lose the game ... u can win the popular vote but lose the election ... u CAN’T score more points and lose the game ... u can’t lose the electoral college and lose the election ...
Hope that helps ... i may need an English teacher in here also ... we all know it won’t be me ... *L* ...
Oh Hillary was a terrible candidate. Most people knew it. Even with people knowing that and not liking her, she still received the majority of the votes.
Nobody here is making themselves look bad but those that try to deny that Trump won an election with almost three million less votes.
It doesn't matter when it comes to the outcome of who won the election. But then again I never said it did. Does trying to make it sound like I said something I never said make you look bad? I would think so.
I see the numbers must be too big for you to solve this complicated equation.
Yes, it is like a baseball team out hitting their opponent but losing. Or a football team gaining more yards than their opponent but losing. Or a basketball team shooting a higher % than their opponent but losing.
It's actually like all of those teams scoring more points and losing.
The electoral college haas worked fine for over 200 years. But as soon as crybaby Democrats lose one they have tohave it ousted. Do you really want wackos on the East and West coast setting policy for us?
The electoral college haas worked fine for over 200 years. But as soon as crybaby Democrats lose one they have tohave it ousted. Do you really want wackos on the East and West coast setting policy for us?
Yes. At least more than we want the science denying, poorly educated, bible toting, race baiting, rebel flag waving, gun wagging, nut jobs in the middle if the country setting policy.
See it’s easy to group people and mark them all the same.
Yes, it is like a baseball team out hitting their opponent but losing. Or a football team gaining more yards than their opponent but losing. Or a basketball team shooting a higher % than their opponent but losing.
It's actually like all of those teams scoring more points and losing.
No it is not like scoring more points. If California is worth 55 electoral college votes then only 55 points can a candidate get winning California. By 1 vote or 3,000,000 votes. The point total was correct and Trump actually won by 77 points.
this breaks down how the electoral college works and why its jacked up. it shows how a candidate could even win presidency with less than 30% of the popular vote.
the electoral college really is a participation trophy system. and we all southern states and conservatives love participation trophies, such as civil war statues.
The electoral college haas worked fine for over 200 years. But as soon as crybaby Democrats lose one they have tohave it ousted. Do you really want wackos on the East and West coast setting policy for us?
Yes. At least more than we want the science denying, poorly educated, bible toting, race baiting, rebel flag waving, gun wagging, nut jobs in the middle if the country setting policy.
See it’s easy to group people and mark them all the same.
Dude science denying, in what way?Poorly educated? There are many good college in the Midwest and South.Bible toting? I guess to you thats a bad thing.Race baiting? How about a few instances of Race baiting. Rebel flag waving? That flag means something to some people in the South. Just because you and some of your self important buddies decide it means something Racist doesn't matter. Gun wagging? We just learned gun owners are not the problem. I'm talking VA gun rally.
I lived to California for a couple of years. There are a lot of good ,hardworking, reasonable .people there. The problem is that there are a lot of them like you.
The electoral college haas worked fine for over 200 years. But as soon as crybaby Democrats lose one they have tohave it ousted. Do you really want wackos on the East and West coast setting policy for us?
See, this is exactly the kind of post I was hoping for. Along with you as well as diam and a few others, You haven't really figured out who the cry baby really was in all of this have you?
What I would like is for every Americans vote to count the same. And let's be honest, why would you want every American to have an equal voice in who is president? Since 2000 your party has managed to win the presidency with a minority of the votes twice. So it is working well..... for some people.
But let's get back to who the real crybaby is in all of this. That would be Trump and his bruised ego. Trump couldn't stand to admit he lost the popular vote. His ego wouldn't allow it.
First he made up a lie to make it sound like he actually won the popular vote........
Quote:
Trump renews unfounded allegations of illegal voting
Then, to try and back up his lie, he actually spent your tax payer dollars to form a commission to investigate all of these "illegal votes". Of course the commission disbanded later when nothing was found to back his claims.
Quote:
Member Of Disbanded Trump Voter Fraud Commission Speaks Out
So the next time you folks wish to talk about how it means nothing? Or the next time Diam wants to say something stupid like, "go ahead and prove once again just how hard headed u are no matter how bad u make yourself look".
You folks need to send those messages to Trump. He's the one that wasted your tax payer dollars because his ego can't stand the thought that a terrible candidate like Hillary was more popular than he was.
And maybe you guys should get you your own hashtag..... #votesdon'tmatter
I mean Trump is still repeating this same rhetoric even after his own appointed commission could find nothing.
Diam better hurry up and send him the message that he needs to stop proving once again just how hard headed he is no matter how bad bad he makes himself look.
Trump’s 29th Trip To Mar-a-Lago Brings Golf Tab To 334 Years Of Presidential Salary
The president often brags about not taking a paycheck, but his golf hobby has now cost taxpayers $133.8 million.
President Donald Trump returned to Mar-a-Lago on Friday evening for the 29th golf-related trip of his presidency to his for-profit Palm Beach, Florida, resort, raising his total taxpayer golf tab to $133.8 million.
That figure translates to 334 years of the presidential salary that Trump and his supporters frequently boast he is not taking.
During Barack Obama’s presidency, Trump frequently claimed he was playing golf too much and at too great an expense to taxpayers.
“I play golf to relax. My company is in great shape. @BarackObama plays golf to escape work while America goes down the drain,” Trump tweeted in December 2011.
“Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf. Worse than Carter,” he wrote three years later.
As he began his own run for the White House, candidate Trump repeatedly promised that golf would never make it onto a President Trump’s schedule. “I love golf, but if I were in the White House, I don’t think I’d ever see Turnberry again. I don’t think I’d ever see Doral again,” he told a rally audience in February 2016, referring to his courses in Scotland and Miami. “I don’t ever think I’d see anything. I just want to stay in the White House and work my ass off.”
Yet after three years in office, Trump has spent two-and-a-half times as many days on a golf course as Obama had done at the same point in his first term. If Trump plays golf both Saturday and Sunday, he will have played 248 times. Obama by his 1,123rd day in office had played 92 times.
[place for pic of stupid orange blowhard]
And because Trump insists on playing at courses he owns, the cost to taxpayers has been nearly four times as high as it was for Obama. More than two-thirds of Trump’s golf outings involve seven-figure trips aboard Air Force One, mainly to Florida and New Jersey, but also to Los Angeles, Ireland and Scotland. Obama, in contrast, played most of his golf on courses at military bases within a short drive of the White House.
What’s more, Trump’s insistence on playing at courses he owns and profits from has put at least a few million taxpayer dollars into Trump’s cash registers in the form of hotel room and restaurant charges for the White House staff and Secret Service agents who accompany him.
The Washington Post found recently that Trump’s business has charged the Secret Service as much as $650 a room per night at Mar-a-Lago ― more than three times the normal rate that federal employees are supposed to spend in South Florida ― and $17,000 a month for a cottage at Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, resort. During an early Mar-a-Lago visit, White House employees ran up a $1,006 bar tab, which taxpayers also paid.
How many taxpayer dollars precisely are flowing into Trump’s pocket is not known because the White House refuses to detail how many executive branch employees stay at Trump properties and how much they are being billed. The White House on Friday did not respond to HuffPost’s queries on the matter for this weekend’s trip.
The president is the sole beneficiary of the trust that now owns his family business. He promised during his campaign that he would separate himself from the Trump Organization should he win, but reneged on that pledge even before taking office.
Trump similarly promised he would release his tax returns when he ran for president, but he has refused to do that as well.
Seeing as he was actually impeached, I'd say there was actually a return on the investment.
In what way. Trumps favorability went up 10 points. 61% think the impeachment was a waste of time and money. Most people think the Dems have turned their party into a joke.But keep your hate strong Pit. Maybe you can find a 14 year old kid to punch in the face because of his hat. I'm not sure the American people are impressed with that stuff.
Bill Clinton's approval rating went up too. Thr only difference between Trump and Bill Clinton is Trump managed to cheat on three wives instead of one and Trump has a much longer list of sexual accusers.
Since last week when he openly admitted to doing what he did with Rudy, I'd say not one dime. It was illegal then and it's illegal now. Just because Trump and McConnell rigged the outcome of the impeachment doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. It just means republican senators were either too spineless to act or placed party politics over the integrity of our country and it's institutions.
Seeing as he was actually impeached, I'd say there was actually a return on the investment.
In what way. Trumps favorability went up 10 points. 61% think the impeachment was a waste of time and money. Most people think the Dems have turned their party into a joke.But keep your hate strong Pit. Maybe you can find a 14 year old kid to punch in the face because of his hat. I'm not sure the American people are impressed with that stuff.
He got a bump in favorability for almost a week. but he's back in the mid/low 40s again because he doesn't know how to shut up and take the win. You think red blooded patriots enjoyed seeing him treat a purple heart recipient with such disgraceful dishonor as personal vendetta payback? If you did, then you must have forgotten the oath you took to serve.
Suddenly all Ukraine investigation are to go through EDNY as Barr puts his thumb on the scale for Rudy. This includes Parnas and others.
DOJ taps U.S. attorney to 'coordinate' Ukraine inquiries
But the department's notification to Congress is vague about which current investigations are now subject to special supervision by Brooklyn-based prosecutor
The top federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, Richard Donoghue, is now vetting and managing all Ukraine-related efforts by the Justice Department in the wake of President Donald Trump's impeachment over his actions toward the former Soviet republic.
Donoghue will "coordinate" these activities in the interest of deconfliction and efficiency, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Stephen Boyd said in a letter sent Tuesday to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and his Republican counterpart, Doug Collins. But the letter is vague about the specific Ukraine-linked issues that might require review.
In a Jan. 17 memo, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who picked Donoghue for the role, simply referred to "several distinct open investigations being handled by different U.S. Attorney's Offices and/or Department components that in some way potentially relate to Ukraine."
Last October, federal prosecutors in Manhattan obtained the indictments of two associates of Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani on campaign finance charges allegedly related to an effort to influence U.S. officials on behalf of a Ukrainian government official. The scheme also involved efforts to oust the U.S. ambassador to Kyiv at the time, Marie Yovanovitch.
Giuliani was not charged in the case, but was also active in trying to get Yovanovitch out as part of an effort to urge Ukrainian officials to launch and announce investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter's role on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.
Prosecutors have said a new indictment is likely in the case of Giuliani's associates, but the government has not indicated whether more defendants will be charged. The FBI is also probing aspects of Giuliani's dealings in Ukraine, witnesses have said.
While he is under investigation, Giuliani has also offered unspecified information to the Justice Department that he says implicates the Bidens in criminal activity. Attorney General Bill Barr has selected the U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh, Scott Brady, to receive that information and consider what, if any, steps should be taken on it.
It is unclear whether the FBI or any U.S. Attorney's Office is currently investigating the Bidens, who have denied any wrongdoing.
It's also not known whether the Justice Department is directly investigating the controversial Trump phone call in which he appeared to request a corruption probe of the Bidens as "a favor" from the Ukrainian president. Barr ruled that the call did not violate campaign finance laws, but department officials have refused to say if any other potential legal violations related to the call are being examined.
The State Department has also investigated whether Giuliani and his associates sought to monitor or intimidate Yovanovitch, but it's unknown whether Justice Department officials joined that probe.
Rosen said he was not transferring any pending inquiries to Donoghue's office, but said expansions of those matters and any new investigations would need approval from Donoghue and Justice Department headquarters.
"We are implementing this policy to avoid duplication of efforts across Offices and components, to obviate the need for deconfliction at a later stage of potentially overlapping investigations, and to efficiently marshal the resources of the Department to address the handling of potentially relevant new information," Rosen wrote. "Any and all new matters relating to Ukraine shall be directed exclusively to EDNY for investigation and proper handling."
While Rosen's memo was issued in January, it alludes to Donoghue's role as coordinator being underway even before the memo was sent.
Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Donoghue as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 2018. He has never been formally nominated by President Donald Trump or confirmed by the Senate. Berman, who is overseeing the case involving Giuliani's associates, has also never been nominated or confirmed.
Donoghue previously spent about a decade as a federal prosecutor, eventually serving as chief of the criminal division for the same office he now runs. Before rejoining the Justice Department, he was the top litigation counsel for software firm CA Technologies, now part of Broadcom.
A spokesman for Donoghue declined to comment Tuesday on his activities related to Ukraine. But a press release on the prosecutor's website shows his office recently extradited at least one alleged cybercriminal from that nation.
The letter departs from the Justice Department's typical stance of not commenting on ongoing investigations or their management. Boyd said confirming the roles of Donghue and Brady publicly was appropriate because press accounts and comments by lawmakers "significantly distorted the public's understanding of the Department's handling of such cases."
Rosen's January memo to department leaders is branded as "law enforcement sensitive" and "for official use only," but also stresses that a series of Ukraine-related matters being probed by Justice have "been publicly reported."
Trump is about to face some serious waters. There was already a global slowdown in the markets, and I want to make it clear to everyone that trump isn’t the cause of that.
However, I’ve stated before that how trump handles this is another story. I hope it doesn’t happen, but there is a good chance this corona virus is the event that triggers a massive sell off that economists have said is long overdue just because of business cycles and such.
Trump won’t be judged for the market sell off. He will be judged on how he handles it. Based on how’s he has handled his own self started trade war, I don’t have much faith that he can lead us out of this potential mess.
oil is trading at 47 a barrel. way below the 50 dollar threshold. we are in a situation where we HAVE to continue to pump oil now for profit, according to the news.
supply lines are taking a massive hit, and top executives across the country have cut their outlooks to being revenue neutral.
more and more are calling for a rate cut. trump yesterday said we need to go to negative rates.
who goes to negative rates in a so called booming economy?
who goes to negative rates in a so called booming economy?
Someone who actually has no clue how the economy works. Low interest rates and massive tax cuts are safeguards to help rebound a bad economy. They are the main insurance policy to help during a recovery.
If you waste that insurance on a good economy simply to over inflate how it looks, there will be nothing left to use when the economy takes a downward turn. That's what we've been witnessing so far during the Trump administration.
The electoral college haas worked fine for over 200 years. But as soon as crybaby Democrats lose one they have tohave it ousted. Do you really want wackos on the East and West coast setting policy for us?
Yes. At least more than we want the science denying, poorly educated, bible toting, race baiting, rebel flag waving, gun wagging, nut jobs in the middle if the country setting policy.
See it’s easy to group people and mark them all the same.
This is the most bigoted post I’ve seen in a while.
The electoral college haas worked fine for over 200 years. But as soon as crybaby Democrats lose one they have tohave it ousted. Do you really want wackos on the East and West coast setting policy for us?
Yes. At least more than we want the science denying, poorly educated, bible toting, race baiting, rebel flag waving, gun wagging, nut jobs in the middle if the country setting policy.
See it’s easy to group people and mark them all the same.
Dude science denying, in what way?Poorly educated? There are many good college in the Midwest and South.Bible toting? I guess to you thats a bad thing.Race baiting? How about a few instances of Race baiting. Rebel flag waving? That flag means something to some people in the South. Just because you and some of your self important buddies decide it means something Racist doesn't matter. Gun wagging? We just learned gun owners are not the problem. I'm talking VA gun rally.
I lived to California for a couple of years. There are a lot of good ,hardworking, reasonable .people there. The problem is that there are a lot of them like you.
Science denying in what way? That’s what I want to know too
The thing is that people confuse Ontological Naturalism with science. Ontological naturalism is unfalsifiable, but it is starting point assumption for many.
Back to science. Science begins with a naturalistic assumption and uses methodological naturalism, which the method is fine, but the assumption is just an assumption. Which is fine. As such, they exclude any explanation that is not naturalistic. Ok. Then they come up with hypotheses that take many many years to test, which is fine. Then people say that ontological naturalism is correct, because there is no evidence to the contrary. Which is a circular argument
Below is the basic argument naturalists employ A. Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded because it is not naturalistic. Dr Todd Scott
B. There is no evidence that anything other than nature exists ( because only naturalistic explanations are considered
C. Therefore ontological naturalism is correct
So basically they prove Ontological naturalism by the fact that science only employs methodological naturalism
I don’t mind naturalistic methodologies. But when they are used to prove naturalistic ontology, I see a circular argument.
I mentioned your syndrome the other day. Are you short too?
You want to follow up on your ad hominem. Ad hominems are for people who dont have a point to make. And you can’t answer what I say, so you use ad hominems.
The electoral college haas worked fine for over 200 years. But as soon as crybaby Democrats lose one they have tohave it ousted. Do you really want wackos on the East and West coast setting policy for us?
Yes. At least more than we want the science denying, poorly educated, bible toting, race baiting, rebel flag waving, gun wagging, nut jobs in the middle if the country setting policy.
See it’s easy to group people and mark them all the same.
This is the most bigoted post I’ve seen in a while.
If you note it was said tongue in cheek. He, Dawg Duty, grouped everyone on the coasts as wackos. I grouped everyone in the middle as I did. Not because I believe everyone in the middle of the country is any or all of those things but to fight his hyperbole with the same. Back to your spam.
The electoral college haas worked fine for over 200 years. But as soon as crybaby Democrats lose one they have tohave it ousted. Do you really want wackos on the East and West coast setting policy for us?
Yes. At least more than we want the science denying, poorly educated, bible toting, race baiting, rebel flag waving, gun wagging, nut jobs in the middle if the country setting policy.
See it’s easy to group people and mark them all the same.
This is the most bigoted post I’ve seen in a while.
If you note it was said tongue in cheek. He, Dawg Duty, grouped everyone on the coasts as wackos. I grouped everyone in the middle as I did. Not because I believe everyone in the middle of the country is any or all of those things but to fight his hyperbole with the same. Back to your spam.
No the guy is a legend in his own mind. Things like facts don't get in his way - and surely to God (if there was one) humor would be .... whoooosh. You even spelled it out in your post what you were doing.
Honest question dagesh. Are you even a Browns fan or do you just join random boards to run your dogma on?
First of all, if you think that last post was dogma, you have a strange definition of dogma. That was a critique of Ontological Naturalism and the fallacy of trying to prove it using a circular argument.
A. Any interpretation of data that is not naturalistic is excluded a priori
B. All the possible interpretations we have are naturalistic in nature
C. Therefore, nature is all that exists
That’s how the paradigm works. Convince me that that is not how it works
And us, I a Browns fan since 1980. The first game I watched was against the Vikings in 1980, and I loved the way Sipe and Newsome played. My favorite player currently is Chubb. My favorite all time players are Sipe, Kosar, and Clay Matthews. I hope we draft Benton in first, but would also be happy with Simmons.
I do not claim to be a legend. Another poster took it the same way I did, see the post I replied to, and I was talking to him, not either of you. And I did not say anything negative about Portland
The only one who is judge mental around here is you, MGH. You are judging me insinuating that I think I’m a legend, think I’m smarter than everyone else, etc. you don’t know me or my intentions
I judged a parties platform. You judged an individual. So the only judgmental person here is you
And a bigot is someone who is intolerant of those who disagree with them. Fits you like a glove
[quote=Dawg Duty] The electoral college haas worked fine for over 200 years. But as soon as crybaby Democrats lose one they have tohave it ousted. Do you really want wackos on the East and West coast setting policy for us?
Yes. At least more than we want the science denying, poorly educated, bible toting, race baiting, rebel flag waving, gun wagging, nut jobs in the middle if the country setting policy.
See it’s easy to group people an
This is the most bigoted post I’ve seen in a while.
If you note it was said tongue in cheek. He, Dawg Duty, grouped everyone on the coasts as wackos. I grouped everyone in the middle as I did. Not because I believe everyone in the middle of the country is any or all of those things but to fight his hyperbole with the same. Back to your spam.
Dawgduty interpreted it the same way I did. And you used the words you used, but I am sorry for calling your post bigoted if it was tongue in cheek And my post were in responses to what you and dawgduty said
Fair enough. You say you’re a Browns fan. I’ll not argue that. Just haven’t seen a single post of yours in an actual football topic.
Dawg Duty and I have some history. He’ll see anything I post as an attack on ‘Murica and therefore his own self... who he sees as the only true patriot.
I do not claim to be a legend. Another poster took it the same way I did, see the post I replied to, and I was talking to him, not either of you. And I did not say anything negative about Portland
The only one who is judge mental around here is you, MGH. You are judging me insinuating that I think I’m a legend, think I’m smarter than everyone else, etc. you don’t know me or my intentions
I judged a parties platform. You judged an individual. So the only judgmental person here is you
And a bigot is someone who is intolerant of those who disagree with them. Fits you like a glove
You stated a vote for Democrats was a vote to support Evil.
However you want to frame it - that's what you said.
Since then you have tried to justify your positions in various posts that I find humorous. Including your long winded diatribe about Ontological Naturalism... you frame every discussion as if you have all the answers and all the facts are on your side because you believe in God. That's not at all a realistic or reasonable position for anyone to hold. Quite simply - that's why there is still debate about the many topics you have discussed. It's your opinion. Period. It's as valid as anyone else's - but trying to steam roll people with your opinions presented as fact is just going to make me poke fun at you more.
Fair enough. You say your a Browns fan. I’ll not argue that. Just haven’t seen a single post of yours in an actual football topic.
Dawg Duty and I have some history. He’ll see anything I post as an attack on ‘Murica and therefore his own self... who he sees as the only true patriot.
I have posted some and will post more during free agency, draft and, season.
I don’t do a lot of speculation, but more of reactions to things happening when they happen
I do not claim to be a legend. Another poster took it the same way I did, see the post I replied to, and I was talking to him, not either of you. And I did not say anything negative about Portland
The only one who is judge mental around here is you, MGH. You are judging me insinuating that I think I’m a legend, think I’m smarter than everyone else, etc. you don’t know me or my intentions
I judged a parties platform. You judged an individual. So the only judgmental person here is you
And a bigot is someone who is intolerant of those who disagree with them. Fits you like a glove
You stated a vote for Democrats was a vote to support Evil.
However you want to frame it - that's what you said.
Since then you have tried to justify your positions in various posts that I find humorous. Including your long winded diatribe about Ontological Naturalism... you frame every discussion as if you have all the answers and all the facts are on your side because you believe in God. That's not at all a realistic or reasonable position for anyone to hold. Quite simply - that's why there is still debate about the many topics you have discussed. It's your opinion. Period. It's as valid as anyone else's - but trying to steam roll people with your opinions presented as fact is just going to make me poke fun at you more.
I never said I had all the answers, and yes, they are my beliefs. WHO are you to accuse me of things for stating my beliefs. A sign of right thinking is when you attack a person’s position, not the person
When I said the Dem party is evil, I meant their platform. I do not do personal attacks.
Pretty sure I explained it was the way in which you expressed your beliefs that I was poking fun at. Like Portland - I'll do my best to whizz by your rhetoric.
Fair enough. I’ll just continue to skip past your posts until then. I already have one bible thumping dad in my life. I’ll pass on another.
Feel free to skip whatever you want. And if people would stop bringing it up, I already said I’d drop it. But if people keep bringing it up, I’ll keep replying.
Pretty sure I explained it was the way in which you expressed your beliefs that I was poking fun at. Like Portland - I'll do my best to whizz by your rhetoric.
Please do if you don’t like people with strong convictions
If everyone who takes issue with my posts had done that instead of dragging it on, I would have stopped days ago.
Pretty sure I explained it was the way in which you expressed your beliefs that I was poking fun at. Like Portland - I'll do my best to whizz by your rhetoric.
Please do. BTW, where’s the ignore button
Not sure you can ignore yourself.... oh, you mean to ignore us.
Tap the user’s name. Go to their profile. Select ignore.
Fair enough. I’ll just continue to skip past your posts until then. I already have one bible thumping dad in my life. I’ll pass on another.
Feel free to skip whatever you want. And if people would stop bringing it up, I already said I’d drop it. But if people keep bringing it up, I’ll keep replying.
I could be entirely barking up the wrong tree - but I am not going to spend time checking, especially since you spent several pages claiming something I didn't say yesterday - but the long diatribe about God/Religion/Morals etc was a different thread.... how or why did you introduce a similar and so tangential subject to a different thread? Strong convictions are fine - expect them to be strongly rebuffed when they are based on a fiction that you happen to believe in and you then use to underpin every discussion.
Fair enough. I’ll just continue to skip past your posts until then. I already have one bible thumping dad in my life. I’ll pass on another.
Feel free to skip whatever you want. And if people would stop bringing it up, I already said I’d drop it. But if people keep bringing it up, I’ll keep replying.
I could be entirely barking up the wrong tree - but I am not going to spend time checking, especially since you spent several pages claiming something I didn't say yesterday - but the long diatribe about God/Religion/Morals etc was a different thread.... how or why did you introduce a similar and so tangential subject to a different thread? Strong convictions are fine - expect them to be strongly rebuffed when they are based on a fiction that you happen to believe in and you then use to underpin every discussion.
a. what is the motivation for bringing up something that I double checked and admitted I was mistaken about and apologized for five minutes after you said you didn't say it? (I mistook what Perfect Spiral said as being said by you and apologized within five minutes.)
b. The long diatribe was in response to someone saying that if you are neutral in a moral battle, it is evil or something to that effect. Insinuating that if I choose to be neutral in this election, I am morally guilty of something. They brought up morality and evil, so I asked what the basis of morality was. Perfectly legitimate question. So, next time try context. It is very helpful in reading with comprehension
c. If Christianity is a fiction, numerous men died for a fiction, were tortured and killed for a fiction. Not a mistake, but a lie. (they claimed to say they were EYEWITNESSES to the resurrection)You would have to ask why would they allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a deliberate lie
D. If you say that none of those men existed, I will have to derail another thread with historical verification that they did. You don't want me to do that, do you?
c. If Christianity is a fiction, numerous men died for a fiction, were tortured and killed for a fiction. Not a mistake, but a lie. (they claimed to say they were EYEWITNESSES to the resurrection)You would have to ask why would they allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a deliberate lie
D. If you say that none of those men existed, I will have to derail another thread with historical verification that they did. You don't want me to do that, do you?
So either these men existed and every word in the bible is true - or I have to argue these men didn't exist? Those are the only two options? See - tired of your hogwash. buh-bye.
Make mental note that Portland and Perfect Spiral don't know what ignore means.
No they ignored you. They didn't address you in any way. You on the other hand gladly responded to them even though they didn't address you. I did reply to you and you replied back, just like you said.
They dehumanize me by calling me "it" and and saying I didn't keep my word, which is a lie.
You bring up something I admitted I was mistaken about and apologized for.
Why did you bring up something I admitted I was wrong about and apologized for? Because you're trying to throw as much mud as possible. You guys are funny.
Make mental note that Portland and Perfect Spiral don't know what ignore means.
No they ignored you. They didn't address you in any way. You on the other hand gladly responded to them even though they didn't address you. I did reply to you and you replied back, just like you said.
UMMM...I addressed you in reply to YOUR post.
They jumped in like gangbangers and then I replied to their posts.
c. If Christianity is a fiction, numerous men died for a fiction, were tortured and killed for a fiction. Not a mistake, but a lie. (they claimed to say they were EYEWITNESSES to the resurrection)You would have to ask why would they allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a deliberate lie
D. If you say that none of those men existed, I will have to derail another thread with historical verification that they did. You don't want me to do that, do you?
So either these men existed and every word in the bible is true - or I have to argue these men didn't exist? Those are the only two options? See - tired of your hogwash. buh-bye.
Like to use strawmen don't you. I was referring to the resurrection. Did you not read the post?
So why did you bring up a mistake that I apologized for the day I made it. To try to make me look dishonest?
Why did you bring up something I admitted I was wrong about and apologized for? Because you're trying to throw as much mud as possible. You guys are funny.
Cheerio
It took multiple posts telling you not to attribute words I didn't say to make you stop. Figure I might mention it as many times in return? Anyway enough. Your last poor attempt to stack the argument your way was your worst. No need to continue. Have a great weekend.
Make mental note that Portland and Perfect Spiral don't know what ignore means.
No they ignored you. They didn't address you in any way. You on the other hand gladly responded to them even though they didn't address you. I did reply to you and you replied back, just like you said.
UMMM...I addressed you in reply to YOUR post.
They jumped in like gangbangers and then I replied to their posts.
What color is your sky, MGH?
THey didn't address me. LOL. They brought me up and blatantly insinuated that I didn't do what I said I would do, and one called me an "it" .
Your (the three of you) responses employ dishonest tactics.
Why did you bring up something I admitted I was wrong about and apologized for? Because you're trying to throw as much mud as possible. You guys are funny.
Cheerio
It took multiple posts telling you not to attribute words I didn't say to make you stop. Figure I might mention it as many times in return? Anyway enough. Your last poor attempt to stack the argument your way was your worst. No need to continue. Have a great weekend.
I admitted my mistake and apologized the same day for mistaking you for someone else. I have to question your motive for bringing it up, when I honestly admitted I made a mistake.
and what about you accusing me of introducing something into a thread that was actually introduced by someone else. YOu accused me of going on a long diatribe on something that was irrelevant, (basis of morality)but it WAS relevant to the posts I was replying to (which were about morality and evil. You were wrong. I made a mistake and admitted it. You said something false, and can't admit it.
Why did you bring up something I admitted I was wrong about and apologized for? Because you're trying to throw as much mud as possible. You guys are funny.
Cheerio
It took multiple posts telling you not to attribute words I didn't say to make you stop. Figure I might mention it as many times in return? Anyway enough. Your last poor attempt to stack the argument your way was your worst. No need to continue. Have a great weekend.
You think I stopped because of the number of your posts? No I stopped because I checked and realized that I was mistaken. In other words, I am not deliberately dishonest, unlike people who accuse me of replying to people who are ignoring me. That is highly dishonest, because it didn't happen.
FOR THE RECORD, you INTRODUCED the topic of morality into the thread in question And those posts, they weren't religious in nature. They were PHILOSOPHICAL. Basis of morality is a PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION, or at least I addressed it philosophically, not dogmatically
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moralconflict."
"He who passively acceptsevilis as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
I was talking about Politics in "Trump's approval rating". thread MGH brought up morality
I was talking about Ontology, (which is a branch of philosophy) MGH brought up religion
Do you see a trend?
I keep trying to talk about Politics, and MGH keeps bringing up other things. BEFORE, I was talking about religion, but lately I only address it when SOMEONE ELSE brings it up.
Until MGH brings up religion when I'm talking about politics, right? Go back and look. I was talking about ONTOLOGY in response to a statement about science denying. MGH brought up religion. In the other thread, I was talking about POLITICS, MGH brought up religion. I try to talk about politics and invariably someone brings up religion. Interesting.
And I'm the one who keeps getting accused of bringing up religion
You stated a vote for Democrats was a vote to support Evil.
However you want to frame it - that's what you said.
Since then you have tried to justify your positions in various posts that I find humorous. Including your long winded diatribe about Ontological Naturalism... you frame every discussion as if you have all the answers and all the facts are on your side because you believe in God. That's not at all a realistic or reasonable position for anyone to hold. Quite simply - that's why there is still debate about the many topics you have discussed. It's your opinion. Period. It's as valid as anyone else's - but trying to steam roll people with your opinions presented as fact is just going to make me poke fun at you more.
You brought up God when I wasn't talking about religion. GO back and find the last time in this thread I mentioned religion. Ontology is not a religion. So why did you bring up religion?
You're the culprit who brought up religion again, not me.
I went back in history to February 18. I can find no mention by myself of God or religion in this thread UNTIL MGH brought it up, I think yesterday, when I was talking about the philosophical branch of ONTOLOGY
You stated a vote for Democrats was a vote to support Evil.
However you want to frame it - that's what you said.
Since then you have tried to justify your positions in various posts that I find humorous. Including your long winded diatribe about Ontological Naturalism... you frame every discussion as if you have all the answers and all the facts are on your side because you believe in God. That's not at all a realistic or reasonable position for anyone to hold. Quite simply - that's why there is still debate about the many topics you have discussed. It's your opinion. Period. It's as valid as anyone else's - but trying to steam roll people with your opinions presented as fact is just going to make me poke fun at you more.
You brought up God when I wasn't talking about religion. GO back and find the last time in this thread I mentioned religion. Ontology is not a religion. So why did you bring up religion?
You're the culprit who brought up religion again, not me.
I went back in history to February 18. I can find no mention by myself of God or religion in this thread UNTIL MGH brought it up, I think yesterday, when I was talking about the philosophical branch of ONTOLOGY
I believe you are mistaken again. It's okay - I do it quite a bit too. But on this issue - which is the last I'll write, I'll correct you one more time.
In the other thread - Religion and jesus was introduced before I ever engaged. And my initial post was to comment on how I think you mis-represented a quote from the bible about throwing stones and whether it can only mean using objects to cause harm.
A few pages later YOU were the first person to mention MORALS in any way shape or form.
On THIS thread you brought up Ontological Naturalism.... and while you did not specifically tie that to religion or God - your insistance in crushing the concept of Ontological Naturalism as a circular argument seems to me tied directly to there being something else (like religion or God) .... and if you think that's a step too far I disagree.
Go ahead an have the last word - because that's clearly what you do. Please go ahead and change the narrative or re-frame the discussion points. So far every time i spend time spelling out something you ignore 90% of my post and change the narrative.
You stated a vote for Democrats was a vote to support Evil.
However you want to frame it - that's what you said.
Since then you have tried to justify your positions in various posts that I find humorous. Including your long winded diatribe about Ontological Naturalism... you frame every discussion as if you have all the answers and all the facts are on your side because you believe in God. That's not at all a realistic or reasonable position for anyone to hold. Quite simply - that's why there is still debate about the many topics you have discussed. It's your opinion. Period. It's as valid as anyone else's - but trying to steam roll people with your opinions presented as fact is just going to make me poke fun at you more.
You brought up God when I wasn't talking about religion. GO back and find the last time in this thread I mentioned religion. Ontology is not a religion. So why did you bring up religion?
You're the culprit who brought up religion again, not me.
I went back in history to February 18. I can find no mention by myself of God or religion in this thread UNTIL MGH brought it up, I think yesterday, when I was talking about the philosophical branch of ONTOLOGY
I believe you are mistaken again. It's okay - I do it quite a bit too. But on this issue - which is the last I'll write, I'll correct you one more time.
In the other thread - Religion and jesus was introduced before I ever engaged. And my initial post was to comment on how I think you mis-represented a quote from the bible about throwing stones and whether it can only mean using objects to cause harm.
A few pages later YOU were the first person to mention MORALS in any way shape or form.
On THIS thread you brought up Ontological Naturalism.... and while you did not specifically tie that to religion or God - your insistance in crushing the concept of Ontological Naturalism as a circular argument seems to me tied directly to there being something else (like religion or God) .... and if you think that's a step too far I disagree.
Go ahead an have the last word - because that's clearly what you do. Please go ahead and change the narrative or re-frame the discussion points. So far every time i spend time spelling out something you ignore 90% of my post and change the narrative.
I did not bring up religion IN THIS THREAD that I know of, and I went back almost two weeks
Ontology is a philosophical branch, not a religious topic
You stated a vote for Democrats was a vote to support Evil.
However you want to frame it - that's what you said.
Since then you have tried to justify your positions in various posts that I find humorous. Including your long winded diatribe about Ontological Naturalism... you frame every discussion as if you have all the answers and all the facts are on your side because you believe in God. That's not at all a realistic or reasonable position for anyone to hold. Quite simply - that's why there is still debate about the many topics you have discussed. It's your opinion. Period. It's as valid as anyone else's - but trying to steam roll people with your opinions presented as fact is just going to make me poke fun at you more.
You brought up God when I wasn't talking about religion. GO back and find the last time in this thread I mentioned religion. Ontology is not a religion. So why did you bring up religion?
You're the culprit who brought up religion again, not me.
I went back in history to February 18. I can find no mention by myself of God or religion in this thread UNTIL MGH brought it up, I think yesterday, when I was talking about the philosophical branch of ONTOLOGY
I believe you are mistaken again. It's okay - I do it quite a bit too. But on this issue - which is the last I'll write, I'll correct you one more time.
In the other thread - Religion and jesus was introduced before I ever engaged. And my initial post was to comment on how I think you mis-represented a quote from the bible about throwing stones and whether it can only mean using objects to cause harm.
A few pages later YOU were the first person to mention MORALS in any way shape or form.
On THIS thread you brought up Ontological Naturalism.... and while you did not specifically tie that to religion or God - your insistance in crushing the concept of Ontological Naturalism as a circular argument seems to me tied directly to there being something else (like religion or God) .... and if you think that's a step too far I disagree.
Go ahead an have the last word - because that's clearly what you do. Please go ahead and change the narrative or re-frame the discussion points. So far every time i spend time spelling out something you ignore 90% of my post and change the narrative.
Prepare yourself for a good ole fashion thumping! Lol
a. Ontological Naturalism is a philosophical WORLDVIEW, and worldview is deeply connected to politics
b Worldviews are connected to our presuppositions
c. Presuppositions have an effect on how we interpret data.
d. How we interpret data has an effect on how we think about and feel about issues.
e. How we think and feel about issues has an effect on how we vote.
You vote based on on how you view the issues, and that is largely determined on how you interpret data, and how you interpret data is based on your presuppositions, and your presuppositions are connected to your philosophical worldview, whatever that may be
And you and I and everyone else has one ULTIMATE presupposition that underlies all the rest of those presuppositions. For many, that ultimate presupposition is "nature is all that exists". For others, it is empiricism. But these cannot be verified or falsified any more than any other presupposition. So we're basically all in the same boat.
Except I have something else that you don't know about. Something that can be falsified and verified. and it has been verified. But I can't bring it up, because it is a subject that is not allowed here. But it is something you are not aware of, and it can be falsified, and it has been verified. And it is not allowed to be discussed. And it has nothing to do with religion
You need to build yourself a church. You won't be converting parishioners here.
Hey Pit, I'm not talking about religion...stop bringing up religion. Another guy bringing up religion so someone else can accuse me of talking about religion. LOL
Not trying to build a parish. Philosophical Worldviews are not religions
Wby should I think any of the Dem candidates will do better than Trump has done? Convince me.
On a scale of 1-10, I give Bernie a minus 5, based on his history, his Socialistic platform, and his association with anti semite, which is strange, seeing he is Jewish.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
At that point in a race against Trump you have an unassailable lead.
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
I appreciate your service. But what does this have to do with the job he's done as president.
On what basis is one marriage better than numerous marriages in a naturalistic worldview?
Would you rather have a president who once supported a candidate that once said "soldiers should turn their weapons on their officers"? Or do you support someone other than Sanders? If so, who?
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
At that point in a race against Trump you have an unassailable lead.
Yep all that qualifies Swish to be a president. Sure.
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
I bet that your net worth is also more than any money given to you. As opposed to Trump whose net worth would be higher if he'd simply taken his inheritance and let Edward Jones invest it for him.
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
I bet that your net worth is also more than any money given to you. As opposed to Trump whose net worth would be higher if he'd simply taken his inheritance and let Edward Jones invest it for him.
and thats a big on for me when it comes to businessmen.
if you're not a self made man, but instead a 1% kid with a 200 million dollar inheritance, then the only way you qualify based on money is if you made more than what you wouldve if you just sat it in the stock market for the last 30-40 years.
my qualifications to run are certainly better than Trump's were in 15-16. you havent listed ANY qualifications he had to run.
why cant you do what Pit asked and list his qualifications to run for office? youre arguing in favor for him, so it should be EASY.
None of the things you listed qualify you for presidency.
And I'm actually not arguing in favor of him. I merely asked "why should I believe any of the Dem candidates would do better". I have not received a rational answer yet.
I do think Bernie Sanders history is far more damaging to his ability to be a president. The stuff he was involved in when he was younger is way worse and more damaging to his ability to be a president, IMO
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
I bet that your net worth is also more than any money given to you. As opposed to Trump whose net worth would be higher if he'd simply taken his inheritance and let Edward Jones invest it for him.
and thats a big on for me when it comes to businessmen.
if you're not a self made man, but instead a 1% kid with a 200 million dollar inheritance, then the only way you qualify based on money is if you made more than what you wouldve if you just sat it in the stock market for the last 30-40 years.
which he didnt.
All irrelevant.
Think about your party's frontrunner and wbat his political history is and then you will know why his history is far more damaging than Trump's is.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promtoing those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
I bet that your net worth is also more than any money given to you. As opposed to Trump whose net worth would be higher if he'd simply taken his inheritance and let Edward Jones invest it for him.
and thats a big on for me when it comes to businessmen.
if you're not a self made man, but instead a 1% kid with a 200 million dollar inheritance, then the only way you qualify based on money is if you made more than what you wouldve if you just sat it in the stock market for the last 30-40 years.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promtoing those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
I guess you think those are the only two policies on the Democratic platform, LOL
Another strawman. You do realize that logical fallacies like strawmen are basically lies dressed up like an argument.
I said clearly that I did not think the entire Democratic platform was evil, only parts of it. Stay on topic
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promtoing those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
I guess you think those are the only two policies on the Democratic platform, LOL
Another strawman.
I wasn't planning to engage in a one sided debate any more but an observation - [1] YOU keep re-framing the discussion and inventing new angles [2] then when someone offers a good talking point or winning counterpoint - you keep talking about Strawman arguments.... that's poppycock.
No-one said that healthcare was the only platform. There is no Strawman argument here.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promtoing those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
I guess you think those are the only two policies on the Democratic platform, LOL
Another strawman.
I wasn't planning to engage in a one sided debate any more but an observation - [1] YOU keep re-framing the discussion and inventing new angles [2] then when someone offers a good talking point or winning counterpoint - you keep talking about Strawman arguments.... that's poppycock.
No-one said that healthcare was the only platform. There is no Strawman argument here.
Since your so lost, let me simplify it for you
A. Pit. Yeah, healthcare for all and better education are so bad
B. Me. At what cost
C. You know that’s not the point. You seem to claim they are evil
Now show me where I said healthcare for all and better education are evil.
I suppose cutting money to education, food stamps, social security and medicare are better?
You seem to forget about some Republican policies as well.
No there are many things on both sides I disagree with. I am weighing the good and bad of both sides. And if it ends up Trump vs Sanders, Trump gets m vote. If you want to discuss other Dem candidates, we can do so. I have things to do, so I’m going to have to quit soon thoughts
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promtoing those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
For mine and MGH’s benefit...what is the thread and the post number where I said healthcare for all and better education are evil. Thanks.
Feel free to share if you find it as well, MGH888
If you can’t, then his statement that I said healthcare for all and better education are evil is a straw man
They wont answer the last post before this one, watch. I know how they operate. Make an accusation and then when you ask them where you said that, they run away from the question.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promtoing those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
I guess you think those are the only two policies on the Democratic platform, LOL
Another strawman.
I wasn't planning to engage in a one sided debate any more but an observation - [1] YOU keep re-framing the discussion and inventing new angles [2] then when someone offers a good talking point or winning counterpoint - you keep talking about Strawman arguments.... that's poppycock.
No-one said that healthcare was the only platform. There is no Strawman argument here.
Read the quotes. He claimed I seemed to say healthcare for all and better education are evil. Never said it. You won’t find it anywhere. Nope.
1. No-one claimed healthcare was the ONLY platform the Dems run on. You insinuated it was what someone said and then cried "Strawman" .... but the ONLY person doing that is YOU because YOU constantly try to change the narrative to twist the discussion.
2. When whoever it was said Healthcare and Education are evil HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC.
It's quite simple and a very easy answer. You yourself have agreed with the evils on both sides. Yet you claim one side as evil without acknowledging that both sides are evil. Once you admit that both sides are evil you will be making a point.
Until then you are being bias and don't really wish to admit that neither actually have the upper ground.
It's quite simple and a very easy answer. You yourself have agreed with the evils on both sides. Yet you claim one side as evil without acknowledging that both sides are evil. Once tou admit that both sides are evil you will be making a point.
Until then you are being bias and don't really wish to admit that neither actually have the upper ground.
Again, where did I say that healthcare for all and better education are evil
And go back and read the post you are referring to. I never said one side is evil. I said to support one side is to support evil. And yes, both sides have evil policies. But one sides policies are worse than the others, IMO
USA had evil policies in the 40s. So did the Nazis. So did the Commies. But sometimes you choose lesser evil. Like amputating a foot to stop the spread of gangrene.
I do not care for Dems or Republicans. So I can only choose one or stay out. When I suggested the latter, I was basically called out for it
1. No-one claimed healthcare was the ONLY platform the Dems run on. You insinuated it was what someone said and then cried "Strawman" .... but the ONLY person doing that is YOU because YOU constantly try to change the narrative to twist the discussion.
2. When whoever it was said Healthcare and Education are evil HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC.
Buhhhh-Bye
The strawman was when he implied that I said healthcare for all and better education are evil. If you can show me where I said that, i would appreciate it.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
Anyone here think that this post says either of these two things please let me know:
1. Is this post saying quality healthcare and education are evil?
2. Does this post (or any subsequent post) say that Dag thinks that quality healthcare or education are evil?
The answer is NO. But like all things Dag, he's got a little confused. Hope this helps straighten out the complete and utter total lack of comprehension.
Yep, you’re dodging the fact that you can’t tell me when I said healthcare for all and better education are evil. You even have another dodger helping you dodge, but he’s just being silly
Gotta go. When you find the post where I said Healthcarefor all and better education are evil, just give me the post number.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
Anyone here think that this post says either of these two things please let me know:
1. Is this post saying quality healthcare and education are evil?
2. Does this post (or any subsequent post) say that Dag thinks that quality healthcare or education are evil?
The answer is NO. But like all things Dag, he's got a little confused. Hope this helps straighten out the complete and utter total lack of comprehension.
Don’t stop at that post. Read the the next three responses in our exchange.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promtoing those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
How about this one instead, Included with full context
If you choose to read "they" as healthcare and education ... then Pit is saying you are saying they are evil.
If you choose to read "they" as the Democrats - which is entirely how I read it - then Pit is saying 'you seem to be saying the Dems are evil' .....
Pit is taking your previous claim about the Democrats a little out of context. As you squirmed around the other day and tried to walk that line back .... what you said was a vote for the Dems was a vote for Evil. Semantics to argue that voting for them is a vote for evil and that you ddn't say the Democratic Party/Platform is evil.
If you choose to read "they" as healthcare and education ... then Pit is saying you are saying they are evil.
If you choose to read "they" as the Democrats - which is entirely how I read it - then Pit is saying 'you seem to be saying the Dems are evil' .....
Pit is taking your previous claim about the Democrats a little out of context. As you squirmed around the other day and tried to walk that line back .... what you said was a vote for the Dems was a vote for Evil. Semantics to argue that voting for them is a vote for evil and that you ddn't say the Democratic Party/Platform is evil.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promoting those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
If you choose to read "they" as healthcare and education ... then Pit is saying you are saying they are evil.
If you choose to read "they" as the Democrats - which is entirely how I read it - then Pit is saying 'you seem to be saying the Dems are evil' .....
Pit is taking your previous claim about the Democrats a little out of context. As you squirmed around the other day and tried to walk that line back .... what you said was a vote for the Dems was a vote for Evil. Semantics to argue that voting for them is a vote for evil and that you ddn't say the Democratic Party/Platform is evil.
If you choose to read "they" as healthcare and education ... then Pit is saying you are saying they are evil.
If you choose to read "they" as the Democrats - which is entirely how I read it - then Pit is saying 'you seem to be saying the Dems are evil' .....
Pit is taking your previous claim about the Democrats a little out of context. As you squirmed around the other day and tried to walk that line back .... what you said was a vote for the Dems was a vote for Evil. Semantics to argue that voting for them is a vote for evil and that you ddn't say the Democratic Party/Platform is evil.
READ WHERE HE said “you seem to say those IDEAS are evil”. What ideas was he talking about?
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet? [size:14pt][/size]
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promoting those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promoting those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
Where did the phrase “promoting these ideas is not evil” come from. There is nothing in the context where that phrase makes any sense. Nothing in the context that necessitates saying promoting those ideas is not evil. Look for it. If you see ANYTHING that logically leads to that statement let me know.
As long as we can keep the Left from ruining things, AMERICA will be GREAT. America is great because of the great principles of the founding fathers. Keep those principles, and America will always be great.
Yeah, quality healthcare for all and better education for everyone is so evil. That might ruin us all!
At what cost? Have they figured that out yet?
That wasn't the point and you know it. You seem to claim they are evil. Promoting those ideas are not evil. Stay on topic.
What is the pronoun “they” replacing. A pronoun always replaces a noun. The discussion was about healthcare and education. If pit knows how to communicate clearly, “they” can only be referring to the ideas he mentioned
If he meant Dems, he was speaking way out of context. I never said Dems are evil
This weird thing happened. I ordered a new chest protector yesterday, for softball. Because I needed it. And no one argued. It was fun. And i worked today, in part, to pay for that chest protector.
Even if he meant Dems with the pronoun “they”, he also said “promoting those ideas (healthcare for all and better education) is not evil.”
Strawman, because I never said those particular ideas were evil
Again, I never said those ideas are evil. He is building a strawman, (an argument I never stated), in order to beat on it because he has no answer to what I am saying
I’m actually not here to prosecute you or to support Trump. I am here to expose the fallacies in popular thinking
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
I bet that your net worth is also more than any money given to you. As opposed to Trump whose net worth would be higher if he'd simply taken his inheritance and let Edward Jones invest it for him.
and thats a big on for me when it comes to businessmen.
if you're not a self made man, but instead a 1% kid with a 200 million dollar inheritance, then the only way you qualify based on money is if you made more than what you wouldve if you just sat it in the stock market for the last 30-40 years.
I dont have 6 bankruptcies on my record. I have 8 years in the military, 4 deployments, compared to the guy who dodged the draft.
I’ve been married 12 years to one woman (score one for the family values crowd), don’t golf, don’t tweet, and am smart enough to surround myself with people smarter than me, not loyalist yes men.
I bet that your net worth is also more than any money given to you. As opposed to Trump whose net worth would be higher if he'd simply taken his inheritance and let Edward Jones invest it for him.
and thats a big on for me when it comes to businessmen.
if you're not a self made man, but instead a 1% kid with a 200 million dollar inheritance, then the only way you qualify based on money is if you made more than what you wouldve if you just sat it in the stock market for the last 30-40 years.
Bernie is not some evil socialist commie dictator backer so just stop with your BS. It's a GOPer spin hit piece trying to paint him as a bad dude, period. Only a complete idiot would buy into this hype since he has served, still serves, in the senate/government for decades. He's always fought for the working class and poor since he was young during the civil rights movement. Spreading half truths and outright lies about him to smear him just means you have nothing substantive to attack him on...
Conscientious objector status is not draft dodging. See Muhammad Ali. He was against the war as were many his age back then, turn out it was for the right reasons.
Now getting your rich daddy to pay a doctor to say you are unfit for service, that's draft dodging. BIG DIFFERENCE, and if you were an educated man you would know this.
Sanders is a democratic socialist, like MLK and FDR.
Hahaha, that’s funny.
MLK:
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.
Sanders is a democratic socialist, like MLK and FDR.
Hahaha, that’s funny.
MLK:
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.
Is there a law stating he must release his tax returns?
No, it means there's zero proof that he's a billionaire. Exactly what I said before you tried to change directions.
Moot point anyways. Even if there was a law stating he must release his tax returns. He wouldn’t. Deplorable does as deplorable is. Above the law. Long live the King.
Is there a law stating he must release his tax returns?
No, it means there's zero proof that he's a billionaire. Exactly what I said before you tried to change directions.
Moot point anyways. Even if there was a law stating he must release his tax returns. He wouldn’t. Deplorable does as deplorable is. Above the law. Long live the King.
Is there a law stating he must release his tax returns?
No, it means there's zero proof that he's a billionaire. Exactly what I said before you tried to change directions.
Moot point anyways. Even if there was a law stating he must release his tax returns. He wouldn’t. Deplorable does as deplorable is. Above the law. Long live the King.
Yawn. Much bigger issues to address.
I bet you wanted to see Obama's birth certificate.
