Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Different.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Different.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Not to mention that Trump has done nothing about the boarder wall and has been the best thing that ever happened to solidify Obamacare for the public at large as better than the non-plans the GOP can't get passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
I keep thinking you're phone is autocorrecting border to boarder. But now I think it is intentional and a better description.
Ha! Not intentional.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
No, the money is still coming from the same people now that Trump is President. He is one of them. Trump is all talk and no action on draining the swamp.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
So YOU know better than the American voters. And YOU were able to see what was really going on while everyone else was blinded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
YOU must be the real one with NPD, since YOU think that YOU know everything and everyone else is just a fool.
Have to come up with a better line of thinking. The majority of voters voted against Trump, not for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
A slight majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
But, Trump earned enough votes to win the election via electorial college.
Therefore, justifying your personal hate by attributing some personality disorder and calling the voters that did vote for him fools is a personality disorder itself.
Bill Clinton was elected with just 43% of the vote, but HE WAS ELECTED. Were the other 57% fools? Or were the 43% fools? OR, and this is a big OR, did enough people have him as their choice and were satisfied with their vote?
I was hardly alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
That slight majority still puts the voice of American voters as being against Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Maybe. But I think you've read it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
19.54% certainly were.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
The worst people come up with against Clinton is him getting a blowjob in the White House by an intern despite being a "happily" married man. Well, until lately with the whole social justice angle that has permeated through the left.
You have it backwards. He has a personality disorder - a very obvious one to anyone that has even a vague undestanding of such things - and that is one of the main reasons why I have been strongly against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
I was against Obama (and HRC when she ran against him), so it is a big deal that I defensively voted for her.
Yeah, the being impeached for lying under oath was not a big deal at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
FWIW, a larger majority of voters were against Trump than showed up to vote. They were not motivated to vote for Clinton.
The economy has improved and is showing signs of continuing to improve. This has little to nothing to do with anything tangible Trump has done....mostly because Congress is playing politics with him...but does have everything to do with the confidence those who matter have in Trump's policies.
For the sake of this nation, for the sake of the middle class who got absolutely hammered under obummer, and for the world as a whole, I hope and pray Trump will fulfill the promise he brings to the presidency. He has (still has!) every opportunity to be a great president. So, if those who are driving the economic turn-around continue to have confidence we will all benefit. If they lose confidence because Trump is not meeting expectations, then the economy will plateau. We all lose.
Admittedly, I have been dismayed by Trump's seeming obsession with Tweeting and the things he Tweets. Most of it is totally irrelevant to what he should be focused on. And most of it is un-presidential too. It is nothing but a distraction. Beyond that, I can look past (to a certain extent) some of the administration shake-ups that have occurred. If he is correcting mistakes he made 6-9 months ago when he started putting together his team, then this is a good thing. We'll see...
^BumpQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Salty: I'm not from Mizzou, but show me....
Lobbyists are no longer required to sign in when they visit the White House.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
celebrating day 200 that hillary clinton is not president!!
Well, maybe that's because those "lobbyists" are from outside the DC Establishment and President Trump doesn't want their identity revealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
First, I have a question, if they don't sign in, how does anyone know they are lobbyists? What's going on? Some anti-Trump "watchdog" group is hanging around the Whitehouse noting who comes and goes, and even though those folks are not signing in, this group knows they are lobbyists? If so, then no harm/no foul. Seems to me this group can produce a comprehensive list of lobbyists visiting the WH, eh. We will know who the lobbyists are....even without them signing in.
That should make you feel better.
No matter how bad things get (if indeed they do get bad), all I have to do is remind myself it could have been MUCH, MUCH WORSE!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Russdawg
Thank GOD Krooked Killary is not POTUS!
The best thing Trump, and the GOP, have going for them is the 'craps. Recent polls show Trump's overall approval rating, and the GOP's because of their failure to repeal obummercare, has dropped. The polls are misleading however. The way the questions were worded makes it look like Trump's base has eroded. It hasn't. It has expanded, actually. BUT! many of us who are Trump supporters (I'm not part of his "base" per se), think for ourselves and demand results. So, I can say I don't approve of some recent events...i.e. approval rating dropped...but that does not mean my overall support for Trump is gone.
Analogy: if Tech football loses some games, and someone asked me, "do you approve of the Dawgs performance?" My answer would be, No! I don't approve of it. But, that would NOT mean I'm no longer a Tech supporter! My "approval" rating dropped, not my unwavering support.
Well, same thing with Trump. (and the GOP, although the latter is not a surprise...)
But, the bigger point is this. The polls also show those whose "approval rating" of Trump has dropped, say they will NOT support the 'craps if led by the likes of Schumer, Pelosi, Waters...and especially Krooked Killary. So, while some voters may turn away from Trump, they are definitely not turning back to the 'craps.
Of course, as I maintain, these same voters will flock to support Trump in 2020 if the economy is good. That is the only factor that will ultimately matter.
Believe it or not, 2020 will not be about the economy. It will be about whether Trump should have another 4 years. Of course, there is plenty of time before the election takes place so who knows if he will even be on the 'cons ticket.
It always seems to be all about the economy. If Trump's plan on Obamacare is to let it implode (which should happen around 2018...right PD?), then the economy will not be very good for 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I'm beginning to believe the RINO's will backtrack, but what we get initially won't be much better than Obamacare. I wish sending the money back to the states would get more traction, even though our own governor and reps are pretty much all HORRIBLE and/or corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
1) Polls that show Trump's support is waning are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
2) Polls that show Democrats' support is waning are right.
Got it. :icon_roll:
Props however, for your analogy. I do believe that for many people, your analogy is an accurate comparison.
True, and while I may be loyal to Tech, I have never been loyal to a party. That is why I registered as an independent when I became 18 and have remained so.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
Pretty simple to understand those polls. Some voters say they will NOT vote for the democrap nominee in 2020 if the party is led by Schumer, Pelosi, Waters et al (which it will be). So, if they sour on Trump and decide not to vote for him in 2020, they will either not vote at all or choose some 3rd party candidate. Do you get it now? :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
I "get" the polls. I don't "get" your interpretation of the polls--basically, you think they're valid only when you like the outcomes.
I'm trying to be nice, because I know you're a libtard and thus devoid of rational thought. But, you must be daft! It's not my interpretation. It's what those polls say.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
Why would I "like the outcomes" of polls showing Trump's approval rating waning? :icon_roll:
And, one more time...
there is a difference between a snap-shot "approval rating" and support. Trump's base has expanded since the election. But, many folks are not willing to give him a blank check approval, they want to see tangible results. So, yeah, with all the fake news from the lamestream media, and the RINO's thwarting his efforts, many people who only pay attention to headlines are not in an approving mood.
All of you who voted for obummer twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
SUPPORT FOR TRUMP AMONG REPUBLICANS, WHITE VOTERS, MIDDLE CLASS PLUMMETS, SIGNALING HIS BASE IS SHRINKING
http://www.newsweek.com/support-trum...ts-base-647908
Poll: Just 32 percent approve of Trump on healthcare
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...-on-healthcare
More fake news
No, more real news.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
It is a CBS News Poll. One of the ones that had Hillary winning in a land slide. I'm sure CBS News picked out as many democrats as possible. It's not difficult to spot one...
The poll was conducted from August 3 to 6 among 1,111 adults. The margin of error is 4 percentage points.
Hillary did win the popular vote by a landslide. She lost the Electoral College by about 50K votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
No she didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Who won the popular vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Clinton; but nowhere close to a landslide.
Trump's strategy was all about winning the ELECTORAL COLLEGE vote. He did, and now he's the President of the United States of America. Hillary did not, and now she's just another washed up, also ran politician.
Trump's strategy was to con the gullible, which he succeeded in doing. Fortunately it was only a minority of Americans but unfortunately it was in electorally important regions.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Look to your left and right to see the "un-gullible" Americans. It's a mixture of self declared elites, socialist, and unproductive citizens who lack critical thinking skills. Pretty much a bunch of followers who have never put anything together in their lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Like Guiss and me?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Do you or have you ever owned your own business? Managed people involved in a business?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You've stated many times you don't believe in the capitalist system so my take on you is that you've never been responsible for helping others better themselves through their work or through community involvement. You define a modern day democrat. Guiss is nothing like you.
Where the blazes did you get the idea I wasn't a capitalist? I'm a venture capitalist who invest in early stage growth companies. I've done small potatoes business like rental and home building. Unfortunately, my personal circumstances didn't permit me to start any larger scale ventures not that I'm complaining. And yes, I've done plenty of community service.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I thought Guiss was a lawyer.
You've taken many many stances over the years that prove you are a socialist. You continue to do it today. Of course you don't mind participating in capitalism. Socialist never turn down a chance to make a buck, you just want government to control those who have more success than you. You've never done anything but complain about less government and more opportunities for small business.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
You are so funny. Name one "stance" that I've taken over the years that is socialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Obamacare being good for America.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
The fact that the Republican controlled senate is unable to enact legislation that would repeal and replace Obamacare is not proof that the American people "think it's good for America". It's simply proof that the Republican Party is as corrupt as the Democrat Party. As a lifelong Republican, I readily admit that today, it's a sorry bunch of SOB's that run what was once a grand old party. I recognize this and I am finished with them. You, on the other hand, continue to turn a blind eye to the absolute corruption of Hillary, BHO, and other Democrat leaders. You're as big a part of our problems as those corrupt politicians are. When liberals like yourself can excuse the DNC of stealing the Democratic nomination from a particular candidate and handing it instead to their "chosen" one, you've lost you're ability to think for yourself. Their propaganda has brainwashed you and you are a lost cause.
Are you talking to me or Guiss?
I'm an independent voter and could care less about either major political party.
I would say more but the censor would just delete it.
Salty, my new pal, I tell you this as a friend. You (and Goosey) keep trying to make the case you are an independent and an independent thinker. But, taken as a whole over the years, your expressed views are mostly (like 90%) left of center. On occasion you take a moderate, or even slightly right of center position on an issue, but that is rare. And, to be honest, even I, a friend, questioned the sincerity of your expressed view. Like you were just yanking our chain pretending to be conservative.
Goosey, on the other hand, has exhibited no redeeming qualities. He can proclaim his independence all he wants, but his own words expose him as the libtard he is.
The major economic difference between us is that you think that 19th century capitalism is the way to go and I think that 21st century capitalism is the way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
D80, thanks for considering me your pal. I admit that while I'm a political independent, I was once a republican and a democrat. My first vote was for Richard Nixon (LOLs). I'm conservative on fiscal issues like a balanced budget. These days it seems that republicans could care less for a balanced budget. Like most Americans, I'm liberal on supporting social programs like social security and medicare. I support policy decisions based on science like climate change caused by greenhouse gases.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I'm partial to 20th century capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
19th century was too owner-centered, with total disregard for the employees. Henry Ford was the first bigtime industrialist to make significant changes. Many of his ideas we still use today. Have you seen that awesome series The Men who Built America documentary? It was on A&E, maybe the History Channel. I love it. Incredibly successful capitalists: Carnegie, Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan. But, they were TOO focused on building their personal wealth and lost sight of their own humanity. Well...until late in their lives when they became philanthropists.
I'm not sure what "21st century capitalism" is supposed to be, but it smells like socialism to me. Perhaps you can explain it.
21st capitalism is where, because of the complexity and advancement of modern technology, the government has to guide the direction that the free market economy follows. Take, for example, artifical intelligence. Elon Musk just stated the other day that AI poses a serious threat to humanity and that the development of that technology needs to be guided. Another example would be climate change caused by greenhouse gases.
OR was their inability to pass something a biproduct of their fearless leader insisting that they "fix" the system, but keep its fatal flaw?Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Obamacare is better than Trumpcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
What is good about it? Only the poor and sick like it. You think a $2,000/month tax for a family of four making $100K per year is good?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
No, it is not good but not providing medical care to the poor and sick is worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Like I said many times before, the whole health care system in the USA has to be reformed. The USA currently is spending about 17% of its GNP on health care. Most industrialized countries spend 10% or less and have better health than we do. If we don't act we will be spending 25% of our GNP on health care because the system is based on greed.
Another of your liberal/socialist talking pointsQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
The poor and sick were getting care before Obamacare. In many cases better care.
An excellent example of you spouting off talking points on an issue you know nothing about. Do you know WHY those numbers are what they are? No. Do you know how to fix them? No. Is Obamacare the correct answer? No. Is Trumpcare the correct answer? No. But you seem to think it has to be one or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Just my hospitals, by themselves, write off over $100million annually to bad debt and charity care. That total has not decreased under Obamacare. And for every penny of it...a medical service was provided to the poor and sick with no expectation of collecting that penny.
$100 million is peanuts in the health care system. Why does the USA spend 17% of its GNP on health care while other industrialized countries spend 10% or less and have better health?Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
Like I said, I think we can do better than either Obamacare or Trumpcare. BTW, go break a leg and see if you can get it set without health insurance or cash.
Our quality of healthcare is best in the world.
Our lifestyle is one of the worst.
If you have the right health insurance plan/coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
I can just imagine a LA Tech tailgate party. But a lot of industrialized countries smoke, drink and party like it is 1999.
That sounds like 20th century capitalism in this country. The federal guvmint has always felt the need to stick its nose into things. Sometimes, with good reason, and sometimes just to exert their power and to advance a leftist agenda. Dealing with new technology is nothing new either. I bet you can remember when the electric light bulb was first introduced...:shocked2:Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
What exactly is Trumpcare? I haven't seen any such thing. I do know that obummercare is imploding. Think I heard Nevada is down to just one health insurance provider. Where's Dirty Harry when you need him? Oh, that's right, as a retired senator he has another HC system.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
The socialized system for healthcare that Obama, Hillary, and Bernie want was to be implemented in California by Governor Moonbeam. It would cost $500 billion+ so he gave up.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/23/ca...alth-care-cost
Item 1: I said my hospitals. You have no idea how many hospitals I have. You have no idea what the number is for all hospitals. And that doesn't include medical practices. And you don't know what the actual costs of healthcare are, but youthink you do because you read them on a website or heard a politician say it or some academic study printed it or the CBO published it. But those numbers are all inflated, and they are not 100% representative of the cost of care.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Item 2: I can explain it to you, but I'd need a bunch of charts and graphs, and you still wouldn't get it.
Item 3: yes we can. We actually agree.
Item 4: don't be a smarta$$. I can't because I don't meant anyone's charity care criteria. But I personally have authorized bad debt writeoffs and charity care adjustments totaling in the millions of dollars. There were plenty of broken bones in there. Don't be stupid. Your comment is insinuating that I don't know anything about healthcare. You want a list of all the hospitals in the country in which you can go break your own leg and get it set without paying a dime if you meet charity care criteria? I can point you to several. There are 18 in louisiana off the top of my head within 30 minutes north or south of I20 alone.
It also includes every hospital that takes Medicare and Medicaid...which is almost every acute care hospital in the country. A condition of participation with governmental plans is to have a charity care program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
No comment. Just thought it was worth repeating. :D
Then why the desire for insurance that covers pre-existing conditions? Why are there so many people without insurance before Obamacare?Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
I mentioned the broken leg because somebody I know who is poor broke his leg and the doctor wanted $2800 to set it. I guess if one is in one of the poorest parts of the country the charity monies get used up quickly.
Oh my God! Nope!
I'm sorry, salty, but it's time for some tough love here. You're nuts! and that simply won't fly here. I know the libtard media is TRYING to hook Trump with the total failure that is obummercare. Not a single Repub voted for obummercare, this is ALL on the 'craps. Trump wanted to sign the repeal of obummercare on day one, but it's the RINOs who have dropped the ball.
Look, I suppose you are on other forums/blogs and maybe that bullshit that Trump "owns" obummercare might fly among the low-information crowd, but not here. We know better. Please don't insult our intelligence.
But, we're still pals!
D80, news flash.......Trump is President.......He's responsible, not Obama, not Killary, not Reid.......when the next election rolls around voters will judge Trump on his performance, not his talk.......yep, we are still pals.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
The people w/out insurance before Obamacare chose not to have it. When they got sick they wanted coverage even though they alaready had access to healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Obamacare is not and does not resemble insurance. It is a tax.
Now with fresh egg on his face because of his manufacturing counsel collapse.
Trump tweets: "Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!"
Good move on his part. It was a do nothing council anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
He chose racists over business. Not smart!
No business was being done anyway. He didn't "choose racists". He told the truth and those on the left can't handle the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Makes one wonder why such a brilliant business mind set up the council, only to have them do nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
To quote the social maverick, Madonna, "Come on, Vogue. Strike a pose." Or for those who don't follow my convoluted references-posturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
Setting this council up was one of his first moves. He assumed business leaders would be more concerned about job creation and trade agreements than world perception. This was doomed to fail when the first two swamp members bailed after the Paris deal. Caring more about jobs and free trade is so Washington establishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick
I guess Trump is the only business leader that knows anything. Lol. Trump is a marketer and self-promoter, and apart from being a racist asshat suffering from NPD, not much more.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Bailing out because of Paris was political not business. I understand why some of the cowards bailed the last few days. I don't agree, but I understand that it's what cowards do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Just curious. You've already covered the reasons you hate him including his illness, but do you think anything he has said regarding VA has been racist? If so what specifically?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/16/news...ils/index.html
How it went down, allegedly.
Why else would he providing empowerment to these hate groups? They are celebrating him as they think he supports their vision for America.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Out of curiosity, do you think it's possible for someone not to be racist yet still able to say or do something racist in nature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That's your perception based on what your CNN friends said. I asked for specific statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I think we are watching the same pattern of behavior, you just give him a pass because he has so far avoided having his "grab them by the pu$$y" style racist statement captured on tape.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Surely you remember these instances: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56...b03260bf777e83
So, you think the business leaders were cowards. What about the generals of the branches of the armed services? Why do you think they each found a need to come out and say something explicitly against white supremacy yesterday?
In the Trump bubble, it may smell like roses everyday, but for those of us that don't live in that bubble, it is smelling fouler and fouler.
Or can you be a racist and not realize it? I think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck, and this duck is named Donald.
Please don't confuse me with Trump apologists. I certainly agree with your first statement as I think there are those who have thoroughly convinced themselves they are not racists yet are. I take from you second response that you don't believe that a person can not not be racist, yet be clueless enough to make statements without thinking that could be taken as racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Libtards are racist.
I could see you and Salty making a Grumpiest Old Men movie-the 3rd installment.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I already know what you think and why you think it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I asked you for specific statements regarding VA. Tuesday is what has everybody fluffed up right now. That and the lack of what he said in the first statement. What did he say that was racist?
Again, even if he had said a racial equivalent of "grab them by the pu$$y", I am not sure you would acknowledge the racism. Do you acknowledge Trump's sexism.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
You have to view Trump (and anyone) in their totality. You have him clearly reading from a script on Monday, and the the days around that he is speaking from off the cuff in a way that is consistent with his history as detailed in the examples of the HuffPo article.
The big deal now - which everyone (including our top military brass and even hosts on FoxNews) except for some racists and heavily entrenched Trump supporters see with clear eyes - is that in arguing against the behavior of White Supremists and those that oppose them, he is creating a false equivalence where there is none. And there is no reason to do so. To focus on their "equal" blameworthiness in this situation suggests that he somehow sees them as equal, and it is seen by the racists as a slightly delayed "eyewink" of his "scripted" Monday condemnation. It empowers that group.
Invoking such a logical fallacy is very revealing to how someone actually feels about a subject.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Do Guiss and Salty have antifa masks to match their vagina hats?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...t-left/534192/
Interesting Antifa grew in the 1920s and 30s in response to Nazism and now a new resurgence with Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
So it was an inference, not what he actually said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I figured we'd get to the alt-left mantra eventually. You are ignoring those from the alt-left who confronted peaceful protesters who where there legally. In your and CNN's mind EVERYBODY there protesting lawfully was a Nazi, KKKr, or White Supremicist. As usual, the alt left used violence first. You and the other haters are ignoring some of the facts and injecting untruths.
Bold above: He did not "focus" on equal blameworthiness. He mentioned it. Big difference.
Who were the organizers other than Kessler. I keep hearing about these peaceful protestors and I'm wondering why anyone who wants a peaceful protest would be anywhere near something that Kessler organized.
Make your bed with Nazi's and your bound to catch some feces on you cloak.
Hey bud, I resemble that remark!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Hey, how 'bout those North Koreans?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...p-negotiationsQuote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Yep, all those peaceful alt-right protesters who carried shields and clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin