Election 2016 (Page 35)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2016-10-14 10:00 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Anybody else think it's weird that only media outside of the country covers stuff like this? Oh wait, never mind. |
|
2016-10-14 10:02 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad It's the "bed of nails" theory. If you stand on a nail, it hurts like hell. Trump is such an abhorrent assault on the senses that people dismiss it as Trump being Trump. You were actually making a decent point, but you couldn't help but show your hate for his supporters and call us names? Why do you feel the need to demean those who disagree with you? Because I don't suffer fools. I'm yet to meet an ardent Trump supporter who can provide tangible rationale to their allegiance outside of "wanting someone to disrupt Washington". That's all well and good, but I genuinely believe, based on what I've seen, read, and given my broader understanding of the geo-political landscape, that Trump lacks the mental capacity for the office, and would be downright dangerous as commander in chief of the US. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse to any issue based on an evolving and flexible plain of consideration. They enjoy the sabre-rattling rhetoric, and are reassured by the fact that Trump offers credence to their socially taboo xenophibia, and mistrust of anything/anyone "different". Go ahead, disrupt Washington, shake up Capitol Hill, but Trump is exactly the wrong person to achieve that aim. Yet you are so blinded you fail to see the same things in Clinton. Look at the world around us and tell me she and Obama are doing a great job. Seeing how you have such a "broader understanding" (translated: arrogance) about the world I won't bother trying to debate you. they are doing a good job. iran isn't getting a nuke. the deficit has been cut. unemployment is down. our economy is doing better than china's. 25 million (sorry if that number is wrong) people have healthcare who didn't before.
they are not perfect. many of these things still need great improvement. HOWEVER, I don't buy the fox news/conservative rhetoric that they have done a bad job. I can very honestly say that my life is better now than it was 8 years ago. I could not say that during bush's tenure. |
2016-10-14 10:08 AM in reply to: Brit Abroad |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Brit Abroad Because I don't suffer fools. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse.... LOL Sorry, you lost the 'reasoned discourse' when you start your post off with an insult. |
2016-10-14 10:17 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad It's the "bed of nails" theory. If you stand on a nail, it hurts like hell. Trump is such an abhorrent assault on the senses that people dismiss it as Trump being Trump. You were actually making a decent point, but you couldn't help but show your hate for his supporters and call us names? Why do you feel the need to demean those who disagree with you? Because I don't suffer fools. I'm yet to meet an ardent Trump supporter who can provide tangible rationale to their allegiance outside of "wanting someone to disrupt Washington". That's all well and good, but I genuinely believe, based on what I've seen, read, and given my broader understanding of the geo-political landscape, that Trump lacks the mental capacity for the office, and would be downright dangerous as commander in chief of the US. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse to any issue based on an evolving and flexible plain of consideration. They enjoy the sabre-rattling rhetoric, and are reassured by the fact that Trump offers credence to their socially taboo xenophibia, and mistrust of anything/anyone "different". Go ahead, disrupt Washington, shake up Capitol Hill, but Trump is exactly the wrong person to achieve that aim. Yet you are so blinded you fail to see the same things in Clinton. Look at the world around us and tell me she and Obama are doing a great job. Seeing how you have such a "broader understanding" (translated: arrogance) about the world I won't bother trying to debate you. they are doing a good job. iran isn't getting a nuke. the deficit has been cut. unemployment is down. our economy is doing better than china's. 25 million (sorry if that number is wrong) people have healthcare who didn't before.
they are not perfect. many of these things still need great improvement. HOWEVER, I don't buy the fox news/conservative rhetoric that they have done a bad job. I can very honestly say that my life is better now than it was 8 years ago. I could not say that during bush's tenure. As I mentioned the other day the deficit being cut is a joke argument. What's more important is that he doubled that national debt and that's not an easy thing to do. Where are you getting your economy numbers from? Last I checked China was kicking our butt economy wise: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp
|
2016-10-14 10:18 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad It's the "bed of nails" theory. If you stand on a nail, it hurts like hell. Trump is such an abhorrent assault on the senses that people dismiss it as Trump being Trump. You were actually making a decent point, but you couldn't help but show your hate for his supporters and call us names? Why do you feel the need to demean those who disagree with you? Because I don't suffer fools. I'm yet to meet an ardent Trump supporter who can provide tangible rationale to their allegiance outside of "wanting someone to disrupt Washington". That's all well and good, but I genuinely believe, based on what I've seen, read, and given my broader understanding of the geo-political landscape, that Trump lacks the mental capacity for the office, and would be downright dangerous as commander in chief of the US. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse to any issue based on an evolving and flexible plain of consideration. They enjoy the sabre-rattling rhetoric, and are reassured by the fact that Trump offers credence to their socially taboo xenophibia, and mistrust of anything/anyone "different". Go ahead, disrupt Washington, shake up Capitol Hill, but Trump is exactly the wrong person to achieve that aim. Yet you are so blinded you fail to see the same things in Clinton. Look at the world around us and tell me she and Obama are doing a great job. Seeing how you have such a "broader understanding" (translated: arrogance) about the world I won't bother trying to debate you. they are doing a good job. iran isn't getting a nuke. the deficit has been cut. unemployment is down. our economy is doing better than china's. 25 million (sorry if that number is wrong) people have healthcare who didn't before.
they are not perfect. many of these things still need great improvement. HOWEVER, I don't buy the fox news/conservative rhetoric that they have done a bad job. I can very honestly say that my life is better now than it was 8 years ago. I could not say that during bush's tenure. Oh, and weren't you in High School 8 years ago? haha, just kidding |
2016-10-14 10:26 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad It's the "bed of nails" theory. If you stand on a nail, it hurts like hell. Trump is such an abhorrent assault on the senses that people dismiss it as Trump being Trump. You were actually making a decent point, but you couldn't help but show your hate for his supporters and call us names? Why do you feel the need to demean those who disagree with you? Because I don't suffer fools. I'm yet to meet an ardent Trump supporter who can provide tangible rationale to their allegiance outside of "wanting someone to disrupt Washington". That's all well and good, but I genuinely believe, based on what I've seen, read, and given my broader understanding of the geo-political landscape, that Trump lacks the mental capacity for the office, and would be downright dangerous as commander in chief of the US. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse to any issue based on an evolving and flexible plain of consideration. They enjoy the sabre-rattling rhetoric, and are reassured by the fact that Trump offers credence to their socially taboo xenophibia, and mistrust of anything/anyone "different". Go ahead, disrupt Washington, shake up Capitol Hill, but Trump is exactly the wrong person to achieve that aim. Yet you are so blinded you fail to see the same things in Clinton. Look at the world around us and tell me she and Obama are doing a great job. Seeing how you have such a "broader understanding" (translated: arrogance) about the world I won't bother trying to debate you. they are doing a good job. iran isn't getting a nuke. the deficit has been cut. unemployment is down. our economy is doing better than china's. 25 million (sorry if that number is wrong) people have healthcare who didn't before.
they are not perfect. many of these things still need great improvement. HOWEVER, I don't buy the fox news/conservative rhetoric that they have done a bad job. I can very honestly say that my life is better now than it was 8 years ago. I could not say that during bush's tenure. Seriously, you need to broaden your news sources. The deal with Iran guarantees them a nuclear weapon with 10 years and, if we live up to our part of the deal, can do nothing to stop it. Iran has already reneged on the deal. We are on the brink of war with Iran. Our economy is better than China's? When did that become a measure for the US economy. When I was in China the locals told me the average annual income in China was $800 a year! A YEAR! Ask Bill Clinton how great Obamacare is for America. The national debt exceeds $19 trillion. When Obama took office it was $10 trillion. The deficit swelled in 2009 (hence the steady drop) because of all the stimulus spending that soured the national debt. So, yeah the deficit has come down (since it exploded in 2009) but he national debt doubled. |
|
2016-10-14 10:39 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad It's the "bed of nails" theory. If you stand on a nail, it hurts like hell. Trump is such an abhorrent assault on the senses that people dismiss it as Trump being Trump. You were actually making a decent point, but you couldn't help but show your hate for his supporters and call us names? Why do you feel the need to demean those who disagree with you? Because I don't suffer fools. I'm yet to meet an ardent Trump supporter who can provide tangible rationale to their allegiance outside of "wanting someone to disrupt Washington". That's all well and good, but I genuinely believe, based on what I've seen, read, and given my broader understanding of the geo-political landscape, that Trump lacks the mental capacity for the office, and would be downright dangerous as commander in chief of the US. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse to any issue based on an evolving and flexible plain of consideration. They enjoy the sabre-rattling rhetoric, and are reassured by the fact that Trump offers credence to their socially taboo xenophibia, and mistrust of anything/anyone "different". Go ahead, disrupt Washington, shake up Capitol Hill, but Trump is exactly the wrong person to achieve that aim. Yet you are so blinded you fail to see the same things in Clinton. Look at the world around us and tell me she and Obama are doing a great job. Seeing how you have such a "broader understanding" (translated: arrogance) about the world I won't bother trying to debate you. they are doing a good job. iran isn't getting a nuke. the deficit has been cut. unemployment is down. our economy is doing better than china's. 25 million (sorry if that number is wrong) people have healthcare who didn't before.
they are not perfect. many of these things still need great improvement. HOWEVER, I don't buy the fox news/conservative rhetoric that they have done a bad job. I can very honestly say that my life is better now than it was 8 years ago. I could not say that during bush's tenure. Oh, and weren't you in High School 8 years ago? haha, just kidding college, and you have it backwards. the deficit is the balancing the budget part. |
2016-10-14 10:47 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Brit Abroad It's the "bed of nails" theory. If you stand on a nail, it hurts like hell. Trump is such an abhorrent assault on the senses that people dismiss it as Trump being Trump. You were actually making a decent point, but you couldn't help but show your hate for his supporters and call us names? Why do you feel the need to demean those who disagree with you? Because I don't suffer fools. I'm yet to meet an ardent Trump supporter who can provide tangible rationale to their allegiance outside of "wanting someone to disrupt Washington". That's all well and good, but I genuinely believe, based on what I've seen, read, and given my broader understanding of the geo-political landscape, that Trump lacks the mental capacity for the office, and would be downright dangerous as commander in chief of the US. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse to any issue based on an evolving and flexible plain of consideration. They enjoy the sabre-rattling rhetoric, and are reassured by the fact that Trump offers credence to their socially taboo xenophibia, and mistrust of anything/anyone "different". Go ahead, disrupt Washington, shake up Capitol Hill, but Trump is exactly the wrong person to achieve that aim. Yet you are so blinded you fail to see the same things in Clinton. Look at the world around us and tell me she and Obama are doing a great job. Seeing how you have such a "broader understanding" (translated: arrogance) about the world I won't bother trying to debate you. they are doing a good job. iran isn't getting a nuke. the deficit has been cut. unemployment is down. our economy is doing better than china's. 25 million (sorry if that number is wrong) people have healthcare who didn't before.
they are not perfect. many of these things still need great improvement. HOWEVER, I don't buy the fox news/conservative rhetoric that they have done a bad job. I can very honestly say that my life is better now than it was 8 years ago. I could not say that during bush's tenure. Oh, and weren't you in High School 8 years ago? haha, just kidding college, and you have it backwards. the deficit is the balancing the budget part. You do realize that under OB watch we have had ONE budge passed...that was in 2015...the first one in 6 years! We had been functioning under a CR or continuing resolution. It is Congress's job to pass a budget but it is usually done with the leadership of the POTUS. I realize BO is the first president to have a bi partisan legislature..... |
2016-10-14 10:56 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 you mean the republican controlled house and senate?? |
2016-10-14 11:03 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 you mean the republican controlled house and senate?? So everything bad is because of the House & Senate and everything good is because of Obama? hehe |
2016-10-14 11:07 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 you mean the republican controlled house and senate?? So everything bad is because of the House & Senate and everything good is because of Obama? hehe No, I just think that there is plenty of blame to go around. Blaming the executive for not passing budgets when a portion of the legislature will either not propose bills, or propose ones that are so preposterous that he cannot pass them is silly. |
|
2016-10-14 11:08 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I realize BO is the first president to have a bi partisan legislature..... He's also the first president that had Tea Party leverage against incumbent Republicans. Meaning: they were 100% unwilling to compromise on - well, anything really, and if an "establishment" Republican wanted to compromise, they went after him in the primaries. I'm sure you'll brush it off but this had a pretty serious effect on the House where they are basically running for office continuously. |
2016-10-14 11:10 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by dmiller5 you mean the republican controlled house and senate?? So everything bad is because of the House & Senate and everything good is because of Obama? hehe No, I just think that there is plenty of blame to go around. Blaming the executive for not passing budgets when a portion of the legislature will either not propose bills, or propose ones that are so preposterous that he cannot pass them is silly. There most definitely is a lot of blame to go around. |
2016-10-14 11:20 AM in reply to: spudone |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 The Democrats had a majority in the House for the first 2 years and a majority in the Senate for all 4 years. By all accounts BO thought he had a mandate from the people and refused to compromise on anything. Previous presidents would have weekly meetings with the POTUS but Obama did not. The 104th Congress (the second under Clinton) the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. In his first term the Congress was split with dem/rep in House and Senate. But Bill Clinton got a lot done....including Welfare Reform (that BO undid with executive order). |
2016-10-14 11:22 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 |
2016-10-14 11:25 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio The Democrats had a majority in the House for the first 2 years and a majority in the Senate for all 4 years. By all accounts BO thought he had a mandate from the people and refused to compromise on anything. Previous presidents would have weekly meetings with the POTUS but Obama did not. The 104th Congress (the second under Clinton) the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. In his first term the Congress was split with dem/rep in House and Senate. But Bill Clinton got a lot done....including Welfare Reform (that BO undid with executive order). Which is a good reason it was the first budget in 6 years like you said |
|
2016-10-14 11:39 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood What are the odds of the airplane victim having FB pictures of herself with Hillary?
Source? |
2016-10-14 11:40 AM in reply to: spudone |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by Rogillio The Democrats had a majority in the House for the first 2 years and a majority in the Senate for all 4 years. By all accounts BO thought he had a mandate from the people and refused to compromise on anything. Previous presidents would have weekly meetings with the POTUS but Obama did not. The 104th Congress (the second under Clinton) the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. In his first term the Congress was split with dem/rep in House and Senate. But Bill Clinton got a lot done....including Welfare Reform (that BO undid with executive order). Which is a good reason it was the first budget in 6 years like you said And yet compare and contract this to Bill Clinton. |
2016-10-14 11:55 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Brit Abroad Because I don't suffer fools. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse.... LOL Sorry, you lost the 'reasoned discourse' when you start your post off with an insult. Says the man who called Left Brain "lame brain". Practice what you preach. |
2016-10-14 12:11 PM in reply to: crowny2 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by crowny2 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Brit Abroad Because I don't suffer fools. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse.... LOL Sorry, you lost the 'reasoned discourse' when you start your post off with an insult. Says the man who called Left Brain "lame brain". Practice what you preach. Pretty sure he knows that was a joke....teasing for him calling me Rogillioanderal the previous day. Trust me, if half brain was 'offended' he is well able to defend himself with his rapier-like wit. You know what they say, "If you can't take the heat.....IM Arizona is probably not for you" |
2016-10-14 12:13 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by crowny2 Pretty sure he knows that was a joke....teasing for him calling me Rogillioanderal the previous day. Trust me, if half brain was 'offended' he is well able to defend himself with his rapier-like wit. You know what they say, "If you can't take the heat.....IM Arizona is probably not for you" Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Brit Abroad Because I don't suffer fools. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse.... LOL Sorry, you lost the 'reasoned discourse' when you start your post off with an insult. Says the man who called Left Brain "lame brain". Practice what you preach. that's really low of you to pick on the mentally disabled rogillio |
|
2016-10-14 12:21 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Election 2016 All I know is that the longer this election run-up goes the dumber we all get. |
2016-10-14 12:21 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by crowny2 Pretty sure he knows that was a joke....teasing for him calling me Rogillioanderal the previous day. Trust me, if half brain was 'offended' he is well able to defend himself with his rapier-like wit. You know what they say, "If you can't take the heat.....IM Arizona is probably not for you" Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Brit Abroad Because I don't suffer fools. I will debate anyone who's willing to give reasoned discourse.... LOL Sorry, you lost the 'reasoned discourse' when you start your post off with an insult. Says the man who called Left Brain "lame brain". Practice what you preach. that's really low of you to pick on the mentally disabled rogillio LOL At least I did not make fun of his hair.... |
2016-10-14 1:30 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I think Hillary's plan to lay low and stay off the camera and out of the headlines is pretty effective. It serves her well that Michele and Obama and Bill our out campaigning for her. They are all likable.....Hillary? not so much. So the more airtime her surrogates can get instead of her, the better. She is like a little prairie dog and will pop up here and there for about 10 minutes but no speeches or rallies. She just need to sit back and let the media finish the fight for her. So far it seems to be working.... |
2016-10-14 2:06 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by tuwood Source? What are the odds of the airplane victim having FB pictures of herself with Hillary?
Just a general question. I saw earlier that she works as a secretary for a lady that's a director for a Super PAC that supports Hillary and there are FB pictures of her boss and Hillary together that are going around the internet. Wondering what the odds are of her having a snap or two out there. |
|
2016 - WTF Pages: 1 2 | |||
Election 2014 Pages: 1 2 3 | |||