Moderator: Andrew
yulog wrote:What if Trump wins?
The_Noble_Cause wrote:yulog wrote:What if Trump wins?
America will be great again. Duh.
ebake02 wrote:It all depends if the democrats can win back control of congress. If they can't then it will be more of the same do nothing bullshit.
Monker wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:yulog wrote:What if Trump wins?
America will be great again. Duh.
Correct...
We'll be great when compared to the other third world countries the US will be lumped in with.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Clinton-promoted policies like NAFTA turned this country into a customer service minimum wage nation. Doubt Trump could do much worse.
Monker wrote:Yes, he could, he could end NAFTA and other trade agreements, put on 30% tariffs on various nations for various products, start trade wars, all of which would cause runaway inflation and put the economy back to the Jimmy Carter years.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Monker wrote:Yes, he could, he could end NAFTA and other trade agreements, put on 30% tariffs on various nations for various products, start trade wars, all of which would cause runaway inflation and put the economy back to the Jimmy Carter years.
The risk of "runaway inflation" is as likely to happen as the millions of well-paying jobs that NAFTA allegedly created. You keep parroting the establishment line. Meanwhile, Trump will keep re-writing the rules.
Monker wrote:You're wrong. When you put a tax on imports, it increases the price of those products. That is inflation. If Trump tries to bring back entire industries and tax those industries imports so our products can compete, then that is a huge amount of inflation. Anybody with even a partial brain should be able to see that. And, it will start trade wars where we won't be able to export, and more tariffs on other imports causing even more inflation.
Trump has no rules...he just makes shit up as he goes. Most of the time I don't think he even knows what he's talking about and is just repeating some line he read the internet. He is not this brilliant guy that he and others thinks he is. He is just a spoiled rich dude with a narcissistic personality disorder who thinks he knows more than he does, never admits when he is wrong, never apologizes but blames everybody else instead, says he is a counter puncher but is really the asshole who will do anything to 'win', he is a racist, misogynist, bigot, fascist, has no real respect for government, liberty, or democracy and only sees power in the Presidency.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:To quote Reagan, "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."
Truthfully, you don't know what will happen if Trump reverts to protectionist policies.
The fact that Trump endorses such unconventional thinking is good news.
On a related note, the State department just blocked the release of more Hillary emails on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I know where Trump (and Bernie) stand on the TPP and similar job-destroying trade deals. How about your candidate? And what is she hiding?
Monker wrote:To quote YOU, "I am the most liberal person on this forum."
Obviously, you are pretty damn ignorant.
Monker wrote:It is simple common sense that if you put taxes and tariffs on imports that it will increase the prices of those products in the US.
Monker wrote:It would be if he had a brain in his head instead of corn mash. He has no idea what he is talking about and just makes shit up as he goes. As long as it increases his popularity, he doesn't care. He loves to prop up his intelligence, but his grammar seems to be the equivalent of a 12yr old. He is no where near as smart as he has convinced people. I don't care what schools he went to.
Monker wrote:I really don't care.
Monker wrote:First of she's not "my candidate"...Hillary is simply the person I feel is going to win. It has simply been obvious to me from the very, very early stages of this game.
Monker wrote:That's just not true. She had permission to use it.
Monker wrote:Clinton did not do this - at all. She's not even accused of it.
What you just said above is "retroactively classified". Whether you like it or not, that means that Clinton can make the argument that she did not send nor receive any Email's marked "classified".
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Monker wrote:To quote YOU, "I am the most liberal person on this forum."
Obviously, you are pretty damn ignorant.
Reagan was referring to know-it-all, elitist, Democratic establishment assholes like YOU.The type that raise their pinkies to the sky as they sip their chai soy lattes while browsing Grindr on their IPhones. NOT independent progressives. Reagan won over independent-minded blue collar liberals (aka Reagan Democrats). Trump will win them too.
Monker wrote:It is simple common sense that if you put taxes and tariffs on imports that it will increase the prices of those products in the US.
Economics doesn't work like that. Many principles of economics run counter to common sense. It's for this reason voters get outraged when liberal economists advocate for more government spending to get an economy out of debt. The very idea is counter-intuitive, like so much of econ 101.
You have proven yourself to have no credibility on any issue ("Hillary had permission to use a private server!") so I really don't care what you believe. I'm just here to call out your lies.[/i]
Trump's off-the-cuff approach is the key to his appeal.
Meanwhile, Hillary is as scripted as an episode of Cheers. Hard to win when you have less humanity and warmth than the robot in Short Circuit. I look forward to Trump kicking her ass.
Monker wrote:I really don't care.
Of course you don't. Because as you have proven repeatedly, you are a whore with no principles besides "winning." No matter the cost.
Monker wrote:First of she's not "my candidate"...Hillary is simply the person I feel is going to win. It has simply been obvious to me from the very, very early stages of this game.
Riiight. That's why every post you attack Trump on his policies while making up sweeping defenses of Hillary or giving her a pass ("I don't care"). Your record of lies is included below. Any newcomers to this forum or thread will know what a slimy, belly-wriggling, shit maggot you are. Reader beware -Monker wrote:That's just not true. She had permission to use it.Monker wrote:Clinton did not do this - at all. She's not even accused of it.
What you just said above is "retroactively classified". Whether you like it or not, that means that Clinton can make the argument that she did not send nor receive any Email's marked "classified".
[quote="The_Noble_Cause]
WRONG. You may as well argue that Bill did not use Monica's puss as a humidor. Currently, only 2000 emails have been retroactively classified - out of more than 30,000! Why don't you just lay your cards on the table and admit you are here to do Hillary's bidding. HACK!
[/quote]
You said there was no difference between what Patraeus did and what Clinton did. YOU just stated above the difference.
Patraeus gave books containing information he KNEW was classified to his biographer. He ADMITTED it was classified when he gave it to her. He passed on classified information to a private citizen, and ADMITTED to that citizen that it was classified.
Clinton did not do this - at all. She's not even accused of it.
What you just said above is "retroactively classified". Whether you like it or not, that means that Clinton can make the argument that she did not send nor receive any Email's marked "classified". Unless she KNEW she was handling classified information, and it can be PROVEN she knew, then there is no case against her. Patraeus not only knew the books contained classified information, but TOLD OTHERS that they did...including the recipient...and he passed it on anyway. THAT is a HUGE difference.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Monker wrote:I am not a Democrat. I will never be a Democrat. I am not part of any "establishment".
Monker wrote:YOU are the one who proudly claims to be a Democrat and the most liberal person on the forum.
Monker wrote:YES IT DOES work like that.
Monker wrote:You have proven that you believe anything Trump says...even when what he says is grossly exaggerated and dangerously wrong.
Monker wrote:Yeah, so much so that Republicans rebelled against him due to his Mexican Judge comments.
It's the key to his appeal to over zealous angry idiots who want to blame Mexico, China, and Muslims for everything...and have no idea what can be done to really solve those issue, besides "build a wall" and ban religions. In the process he has alienated everybody in the Obama coalition which helped Obama win TWICE....by large margins. Trump can't win with angry white men alone and his one African American man that he seems to think he owns. It will never happen.
Then there is the fact that he was scripted for his Tuesday speech....and THAT is what the Republican establishment wants, the RNC wants, and THAT is the Trump that will unify the party. The off the cuff, shoot from the hip, Trump is not going to get the support of the party....that Trump will get the CRITIQUE of the Republican party. Even Republican leaders who support Trump are critical of his rhetoric, like Newt Gingrich. People like Paul Ryan may "endorse" him but are not going to be silent when he acts like an asshole and is an embarrassment to the party as a whole.
So, good luck with your toned down, boring, Trump...which is what the Republican establishment and RNC wants.
Monker wrote:What Patraeus did was completely different and easily proven as passing on state secrets.
Monker wrote:That is like the fourth or fifth lie (you lie so much that I lost count) about me that you have passed onto this forum.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Monker wrote:I am not a Democrat. I will never be a Democrat. I am not part of any "establishment".
Riiiight. Is that why you are on here repeating DNC talking points verbatim ("she had permission!")?![]()
Monker wrote:YOU are the one who proudly claims to be a Democrat and the most liberal person on the forum.
So? Doesn't mean I put my brain in cold storage.
Democrats like you thought it was an outrage when Bush's emails went missing. Hillary's missing emails and circumvention of transparency is far far worse.
In an Econ 101 textbook, yes, it does. But alot changes between now and actually drafting/passing legislation. And if Trump succeeds, I guess you'll be paying more for your imported blow-up fuck dolls. Oh well. Too bad.
Another detail-heavy diatribe about Trump while Hillary gets a total pass. And then you feign being non-ideological. What a phony. Zzzzzz.
Monker wrote:What Patraeus did was completely different and easily proven as passing on state secrets.
Lmao. Petraeus passed state secrets to his mistress. Hillary passed them on to the entire listserv of The Clinton Foundation, plus Sidney Blumenthal’s Snapchat friend list. She's guilty as hell.
Monker wrote:That is like the fourth or fifth lie (you lie so much that I lost count) about me that you have passed onto this forum.
The only person you are fooling is yourself. At this point, you sound like Travolta’s PR person denying gay rumors or Liberace’s butler saying he had a bad case of the flu. It’s OK, man. Listen, we all know you are a liar and a registered Democrat suck-off.
Monker wrote:I said that one time. I couldn't find the "proof" you required and I haven't mentioned it since.
Monker wrote:When you quote statements making generic insulting comments about a group of people which you claim to be a part of, then you put your brain where ever Trump has misplaced his.
Monker wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about with Bush's missing Emails. I doubt I cared at the time, and I don't care now.
Monker wrote:If Trump puts tarriffs on all manufactured goods outside of the US in the attempt to get manufacturing started in the US, then inflation will rise across the entire economy. That is a fact.
Monker wrote:I do not attack, and don't go about wildly promoting her either.
Monker wrote:IMO, Tyranical Trump is so dangerous for this country that I'll critique him as much as I can. He is so scary that I would rather have W as Prsident.
Monker wrote:Go lie about somebody else. You accused me of saying the Emails were retroactively classified. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT...and I quoted you in my reply. That alone should show how you lie about me in a desperate attempt to discredit me. THe ONLY true thing you have accused me of that is true is that I said "she had permission". EVERYTHING else you have accused me of saying has been a lie. You make things up about as much as Trump the Tyrant does.
Archetype wrote:I strongly recommend that all of you stop arguing and wasting mental energy over an entirely rigged system; a completely hollow facade of democracy where you think you're in control and that candidates are actually different, and focus your efforts on becoming acquainted with the revolutionary and brilliant Juche ideology and understand how its implementation here could have a massive positive impact on the well-being of all Americans.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Archetype wrote:I strongly recommend that all of you stop arguing and wasting mental energy over an entirely rigged system; a completely hollow facade of democracy where you think you're in control and that candidates are actually different, and focus your efforts on becoming acquainted with the revolutionary and brilliant Juche ideology and understand how its implementation here could have a massive positive impact on the well-being of all Americans.
Juche ideology? Never heard of it. Why don't you enlighten us?
YoungJRNYfan wrote:I really don't have a logical dog in this fight since I've stopped following politicians the second it was clear that they're all frauds in their own respective light. Having said that, I can only speak of gut feelings and I feel closer to nomination time that when it's all said and done, Hillary is going to wipe the floor with Trump. It may be one of the biggest landslides in recent time. Not only could it make history, but I feel this country as a whole is more into making history than choosing the right canidate, sadly. You know the Republican ' s are in trouble when Donald Trump is your only hope. He's pretty much the male equilavant to that dumb broad Sarah Palin. He's just a sexy choice and nothing else. The dude can cut a great promo and get the crowd to cheer him, but he can barely bounce off the ropes to get to his next spot for a simple closeline. Not sure who I'm voting for right now (I believe we're fucked) but regardless, I think Clinton will dominate.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:YoungJRNYfan wrote:I really don't have a logical dog in this fight since I've stopped following politicians the second it was clear that they're all frauds in their own respective light. Having said that, I can only speak of gut feelings and I feel closer to nomination time that when it's all said and done, Hillary is going to wipe the floor with Trump. It may be one of the biggest landslides in recent time. Not only could it make history, but I feel this country as a whole is more into making history than choosing the right canidate, sadly. You know the Republican ' s are in trouble when Donald Trump is your only hope. He's pretty much the male equilavant to that dumb broad Sarah Palin. He's just a sexy choice and nothing else. The dude can cut a great promo and get the crowd to cheer him, but he can barely bounce off the ropes to get to his next spot for a simple closeline. Not sure who I'm voting for right now (I believe we're fucked) but regardless, I think Clinton will dominate.
Trump goes out and puts forth a stream of consciousness of ideas. Some good, some bad, some borderline racist... but at least it's not the same blow dried, poll-tested garbage. Call it "Archie Bunker Republicanism" or something, but Trump is articulating an insurgent vision of conservatism (pro-social security, anti-bad trade deals) that is absolutely unlike any Republican nominee before him. A win for Hillary would be historic in the same way an Obama win was historic.... in a completely, superficial , meaningless way. At the end of the day you are getting the same corporate-written crap. Hillary has not held a press conference in nearly 200 days. She is not wiping the floor with anyone.
tj wrote:The_Noble_Cause wrote:YoungJRNYfan wrote:I really don't have a logical dog in this fight since I've stopped following politicians the second it was clear that they're all frauds in their own respective light. Having said that, I can only speak of gut feelings and I feel closer to nomination time that when it's all said and done, Hillary is going to wipe the floor with Trump. It may be one of the biggest landslides in recent time. Not only could it make history, but I feel this country as a whole is more into making history than choosing the right canidate, sadly. You know the Republican ' s are in trouble when Donald Trump is your only hope. He's pretty much the male equilavant to that dumb broad Sarah Palin. He's just a sexy choice and nothing else. The dude can cut a great promo and get the crowd to cheer him, but he can barely bounce off the ropes to get to his next spot for a simple closeline. Not sure who I'm voting for right now (I believe we're fucked) but regardless, I think Clinton will dominate.
Trump goes out and puts forth a stream of consciousness of ideas. Some good, some bad, some borderline racist... but at least it's not the same blow dried, poll-tested garbage. Call it "Archie Bunker Republicanism" or something, but Trump is articulating an insurgent vision of conservatism (pro-social security, anti-bad trade deals) that is absolutely unlike any Republican nominee before him. A win for Hillary would be historic in the same way an Obama win was historic.... in a completely, superficial , meaningless way. At the end of the day you are getting the same corporate-written crap. Hillary has not held a press conference in nearly 200 days. She is not wiping the floor with anyone.
Agreed.
K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Then things like this appear.
By Daniel Halper, NY Post
President Bill Clinton had an affair with former Vice President Walter Mondale’s daughter — while multitasking with at least two mistresses in the White House — according to a tell-all by a Secret Service officer who guarded the Oval Office.
Gary J. Byrne’s account of walking in on Clinton and the gorgeous Eleanor Mondale, then a TV journalist, is the first eyewitness report of the long-rumored affair.
“There before us was E! Network host Eleanor Mondale . . . and President Clinton in a compromising position, that is, making out on the Map Room table,” Byrne writes of the alleged Christmastime tryst around the middle of Clinton’s presidency.
Monker wrote:And, then they disappear because nobody cares.
Monker wrote:After the conventions, I feel Clinton is going to dominate the media simply because Trump will not have the resources to compete.
K.C.Journey Fan wrote:What a shame that a bought and paid for, self serving, proven liar, and general slime is your choice for a "Leader".
The_Noble_Cause wrote:In your post, you compare Trump and Obama's reaction the Florida massacre, but I didn't watch either and I don't care. When a loss of human life occurs on that scale, who really cares what a politician has to say? Pretty obvious the FBI dropped the ball.
Lmao. As if the media has been snubbing Hillary or something? Whatever Trump does is irrelevant. Hillary will lose because she is the worst Democratic nominee in history. Also, unlike Obama, she will not energize the young or the minority vote.
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests