President Trump Expected to Target Immigration, Taxes, Trade, Affordable Care Act

Like or Dislike:

6

4

Thank you Rosenblatt.

Like or Dislike:

4

6

Patticake,

So, you are allowed to question my authenticity, but I cannot question yours?

I guess you are just another right-wing hypocrite.

Like or Dislike:

11

7

Actu…Below average intelligence? Hatred? Just which side of the aisle is out there burning MY American flag? Chanting that President Trump should be assassinated? Aren’t you liberals the ones that are the alleged lovers of peace and harmony? Yet, your side is out there rioting, burning the flag, etc? I feel sorry for you because you are obviously sooo confused and misguided..like any other liberal is.

Like or Dislike:

2

3

Thank you FFA. I have always respected you even if we disagreed. It would be nice if others, that includes those on both sides, could follow our example.

However, I will not hold my breath.

Like or Dislike:

0

3

Bob doesn’t even realize this is a perfect description of himself because he believes everything he says is automatically true.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Jax, I have some experience dealing with Ron. He is one of those fence sitting Independents who has always leaned left. He tried to project that he was politically savvy and then he voted Obama twice. Who would have done that unless he was way, way left in the spectrum? He will say he is going to give Trump a chance to govern, but he will be criticizing him from the word go on 1-21-17. I don’t know why he won’t just declare he is a liberal Democrat. I do know that he admitted that his father in law called him a Commie when they first met. The father in law knew it in the first meeting.

Like or Dislike:

7

5

Agent,

You mean, Our President. And it will be Our President who will be judged after his first 4 years.

I have also called for fiscal restraint. It was the failure of the Republicans to exercise such restraint the last time they controlled all branches they made me leave the party and become an Independent.

Like or Dislike:

10

3

No, actua; growth ISN’T pretty much right at 3%.

Liar.

Most likely you are a graduate of the Clintons’ School of Lyin’ Liberals.

Like or Dislike:

2

6

This goes to my point Ron. They can’t comment on reality, and they know absolutely nothing. Uninformed idiots have taken over the country and elected a president much less qualified than one of the worst presidents ever, George Bush. The results will be the same and they will blame libtards.

The will of the people has been overruled by the electoral college in 40% of the elections in the 21st century.

Like or Dislike:

6

2

Growth of 2.9% in 1 quarter ISN’T growth of pretty much 3%.

Further, growth in GDP should be higher than 3% for a healthy, vibrant economy.

The 3% figure was discussed extensively because it is a ceiling above which Obama’s administration never rose. Socialists do not make for good economists. They are brainwashed into thinking their economic policies work and are good for citizens.

Like or Dislike:

5

1

Actu, you don’t understand the electoral college, do you? This video explains why it was established as a safeguard against the potential tyranny of majority rule. It’s only five minutes long, take time to watch it please. (And of course since it’s put out by Dennis Prager, you’ll dismiss it). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

Like or Dislike:

2

1

“I have also called for fiscal restraint. It was the failure of the Republicans to exercise such restraint the last time they controlled all branches they made me leave the party and become an Independent.”

No, you haven’t. You blamed Regan for the deficits in the past, when he passed a plan from democrats that went against the cuts the CBO even reported he would do.

The omnibus bill of 1981 passed in Congress, was sponsored by a democrat with a democrat majority. And yet you blamed Reagan. He can only pass what a congress puts forward.

Moving to republicans in control of all 3 houses:

The majority of their deficits were recession oriented, recessions they didn’t cause.

Moreover, they were substantially less than Obama’s, and Obama received the bills he asked for that increased the deficits. Thus, we can blame him, and with Reagan, Reagan did not get what he asked for, so we can blame the democrats.

Many, if not most, of the years with republican control were in the 200 billion of a deficit with the exception of the last year, and this included the increased Iraq war spending.

The republicans under Bush W did well with annual deficits.

Like or Dislike:

4

0

“As always with Bob, gross incompetence, or outright lies. Reagan proposed a budget that increased the debt by more and signed this when his was defeated. This has been mentioned here at least 3 dozen times and you ignore it because you are a partisan hack.”

Wrong. You call me a hack and you don’t even know his proposed bills.

“Outlays during the next three years would be held below 6 percent per year, compared with the compound annual growth of 13 percent since 1977.”

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/97th-congress-1981-1982/reports/81doc19.pdf

“Also, your comments make no sense in regards to Ron’s comments. Reagan called for more spending and larger deficits but he’s fiscally responsible because the budget he signed was made largely by Democrats.”

Wrong, he called for spending cuts, he had a democrat congress which was sponsored by James Jones, a democrat. You don’t source quote like this, you just say crap and you don’t back it up. All I have to do, is show proposals with cuts to prove Reagan didn’t get what he wanted. Also, I said he was fiscally responsible but didn’t get what he wanted.

“Bush increased the debt by a percentage by about as much as Obama and left a massive crash, but doesn’t count for some reason. Obama has decreased the deficit by historic amounts but Republicans are fiscally responsible. Stupid.”

That is misleading. We look at annual deficits. The debt of course rose, but annual deficits under Bush W were consistently in the $200 – $300 billion range. You are manipulating numbers. 5 of his 8 years were $200 – $300 billion. This does not make me a partisan hack. I am about the numbers.

In billions on deficit:

2002 157.75
2003 377.59
2004 412.73
2005 318.35
2006 248.18
2007 160.71
2008 458.55
2009 1412.69

Obama kept the increases inflated for far longer, whereas republicans, the higher spending was an off year. Most were $200-$300 billion years.

In trillions of deficits down to billions later

2010 – 1.295 Trillion
2011 – 1.295 Trillion
2012 – 1.085 Trillion

Note that I quite fairly didn’t count 2009 for him and counted it on Bush W?

These three years are far more a crime than one year of increased spending from Bush W.

Then the deficit did start going down, but it’s not from substantial decreases in spending, it is from increases in revenue.

2013 – $675 billion
2014 – $485 Billion
2015 – $435 Billion

What do you notice here? The republicans took over and again we see a reduction in spending starting to occur. They are going against his spending proposals, if he had his way these deficits would be worse. The republicans have consistently proposed lower spending.

Please note after the republican take over of 1995, we had a substantial reduction immediately following the year their budget proposals would take affect (as they started in 1995)

1993 255 billion
1994 200 billion
1995 205 billion
1996 165 billion
1997 20 billion
1998 65 billion surplus
1999 125 billion surplus
2000 235 billion surplus

“You are as always a lying piece of crap about recent Republican deficits being tied to the recession.”

Nope. I’m not. You can clearly see where the recession harmed the deficits, and then the deficits went back down. No bills were changed in those years, so the spike up until 2004 at 400 billion, suddenly followed by $300 billion, $250 billion, and then $160 billion. Then it spikes back up on the next recession to $450 billion. It’s clear this was economically driven.

“First, their policies caused it, so there is no reason they would not apply even if that were the case”

Nope. The dot com bubble bursting had nothing to do with republicans. In the second recession, the CRA regulations (not loans) had everything to do with companies not being able to change bank charter filing, and not being able to merge or grow without a high CRA rating which only gave you an excellent rating if you proved you gave loans to low income borrowers with little to no proof of loan documentation. In other words, you had to make commitment to low income loan borrowers, who probably couldn’t pay back the loans, in order to give your safe loans. I have already explained this before, and I have quoted law regarding it, as well as showed the section of the CRA bills holding this requirement.

“Second, moron, most of the Iraq War was funded by debt, that had nothing to do with the recession, aside from being a huge contributor to the cause.”

I only brought up the Iraq war, because the deficits did not swell that much despite it, even with them, the deficits were on an annual basis very reasonable.

“Nothing you say is even tangentially related to reality, you are by far the least knowledgeable or least honest person I’ve ever encountered,”

HAHAHAHAHA no. That’s you.

“aside from your fellow hate-speech buddy, Agent.”

I don’t put up hate speech, you put up hateful crap all the time though. I use facts that you label as hate speech because you are a buffoon.

“Now post the same bs New York Times article that has been shot down, and ignored by you, 3 dozen times. Or just whine about PC, I’m not sure if you are completely against it or entirely for it this week, because as always you aren’t coherent or consistent, and go by what drudge tells you.”

I don’t read the Drudge.

More links to come regarding the Reagan events. I don’t quote New York times. I took the CBO review for this one. I took my other links from government spending records online.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Then we can look at the republicans of 1995 vs Clinton.

By the way, note the government shut down, in 1995, and the boom in economy during 1995 and afterward, as well as the immediate better deficits.

But the shut down during Obama is what caused our credit rating to go down right? No. It was Obama, and the fact that every country knew he was refusing cuts.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-12-19/news/9512190217_1_clinton-vetoes-gop-agenda-republican-spending-bills

Bill Clinton blocked spending cuts.
The congress tried spending cuts.

This means the 1995-2001 republican majority congress was in favor of reductions and gets that credit.

Reagan proposed spending cuts, and had to accept a democrat proposal for 1981. This means the democrats forcing that spending get credit for that spending, and Reagan gets credit for attempting cuts.

The congress during Bush W had decent deficits, far better than those under Obama, in which Obama got what he wanted against the conservative congress and senate. Therefore, Obama gets credit for that spending, and the republicans get credit for the better spending and annual deficits under Bush.

Republicans have consistently been against higher spending. Whether they get it is another story.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

Also UW:

I have not quoted the drudge. I can’t recall if it is ever, but I believe it is. I say this because I cannot recall the last time I even read the drudge.

So that bigoted behavior of labeling an entire news station, in order to control who people listen to, is insane, for one, and for two, it is inaccurate. You are engaging in bigoted tactics with me. You are grouping me with bull crap that I have never even quoted.

I have no association with drudge.

And if I did, you would still need to disprove my facts.

Idiot.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

I have spent hours every night for over 10 years looking up bills and looking up the info I do.

You believe that I just come up with it off the top of my head. No. The reason I find it so fast is I’m looking up links I’ve already source quoted in the past.

I’m really sick of you though, because I can see, YOU DO THAT YOURSELF. You have accused me of it, but you have so consistently put things up that you have not fully researched it is clear you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, and you looked only until you found the conclusion that matched your opinion.

Especially true of Reagan’s spending.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

“No, it’s inconvenient, for your BS argument. Of course, you ignore the last year when it tripled,”

No I didn’t. I focused on spending. It tripled due to spending going up for one year. I call that an anomaly. I then need to account for the war and recessions, and they did much better than Obama did for spending. This is a fact.

“and count the years after that as having nothing to do with the crash, again, because you are an idiotic hack. Obama had to follow textbook, mainstream ”

This is false equivalency. Bush did not intend on keeping that spending permanent (your assumption here was that we needed to do the spending, no we didn’t, but whether or not we did doesn’t change that the spending happened and Obama is responsible for spending, and believes it is the correct action to take, whereas Republicans, just don’t spend unless it is a one off year, you tried to generalize that republicans were worse on SPENDING after all, the why isn’t relevant.), it was a one time bail out, this is why I looked at Bush W’s entire normal presidency, and excluded one anomaly year. I myself said that some of the deficits had to do with revenues increasing under Obama. I already took into consideration the things you are asking me to. I applied it fairly. For Bush W the deficit went from $400 billion down to $170 billion with no changes in tax plan or spending. This means it was economic in nature. There is no other explanation, and those were still under Obama’s typical years. The revenues going up after Obama passed his tax plan, can be explained by his tax plan. Ergo, I said it was increased revenues.

The spending can be attributed on those first three years of being terrible, which they were. You’re trying to call one year of bad spending worse than 3, and then are trying to say Obama cut spending when he didn’t, he increased revenues.

Keep focused dumb ass.

“Obama had to follow textbook, mainstream economics because Bush and the Republicans destroyed the economy.”

Evidence needed. How? I already said it was the democrats and explained how.

“Also he counted repayment for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in his budgets unlike the Bush administration.”

Spending deficits included the Iraq war, they were covered in the DOD.

Are you trying to say that the Iraq war was not counted in any of 8 years of deficit, and suddenly Obama’s deficits did count them? This is absurd and a lie.

“The wars are estimated to cost almost $4 trillion and the people you support and take seriously predicted under $100 billion. You and they are clowns.”

No. That is not what I said. I said that Bush W’s spending inclusive of those wars, on his annual deficits, were still not bad deficits.

“You can copy and paste, you can’t think, analyze or put together a thought based on reality.”

Wrong. I copied and pasted data and then I explained the data. Stop with the god damn attacks. You disagree, then debate!

“You conveniently ignore debt as a percentage of gap,”

Because annual deficits are how debt builds.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit_percent_gdp

Read up and note the chart. See what happened in deficits with Bush W compared to Obama? You believe that deficit tracking is not the way and want to do debt tracking why? Debt can increase more when interest rates are higher. The government controls interest rates, and Obama has kept those low. This means his debt will grow lower, but his deficits will be higher, until the interest rates go up, and he is still at a huge share of debt to gdp. I go based on the actual plans people passed that harmed spending. I hold presidents accountable, for spending, or whomever did it. To say that Obama did not increase spending more than Bush W is insane. To say that Reagan did not try to decrease spending is insane. To say republicans didn’t try to decrease spending in 1995 is insane, and conversely, the democrats under Reagan wanted to increase spending and got their way, Clinton vetoed two spending reduction bills by republicans and got his way, and Obama got his spending increases. Democrats are for more spending.

“unemployment, etc because it’s inconvenient. You’re no different than Agent constantly, stupidly spouting off about 3% growth. Liar, incompetent, pseudo-intellectual partisan hack. 100%.”

Are we talking unemployment? Which is only low from a low LPR? I have talked about these issues, but when we talk about big spenders we don’t attach other things. I have no need.

“What’s up with Ryan’s new health care plan “phasing out” Medicare? I remember some uninformed, clueless, lying idiot here saying he didn’t want to do that. Weird they were constantly citing an old, half-formed plan instead of the plans after it. Hey, kind of like your bs Reagan citation referenced above. I am sooooo sure that dolt probably left forever in embarrassment.”

This was the lie of the year in what was it 2012? And also Ryan is about reducing government intervention on things that are going bankrupt and will not be around. His healthcare plans have been about reducing cost to save medicare. My Reagan citation from the CBO is not bs. He did not propose increased spending. The democrat I mentioned did, and sponsored the spending bill. Reagan did not get his spending cuts.

It’s funny how right now you won’t count spending when it is for the economy. You agree with spending for the economy. Your party agrees with it. And here you are claiming that you and they don’t and didn’t, even when they passed spending bills, spend.

Are you insane?

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Ok, here’s the thing, you keep saying my source was proven wrong because in the end Reagan proposed higher spending.

Where is the proposal?

If all my proposals aren’t the ones you’re talking about IT IS ON YOU to provide the proposal he sent to be increased.

The omnibus spending bill of 1981 is not his proposal, and was sponsored by a democrat. So that won’t work.

Show me a single proposal, or even the proposal, or request, from Reagan to the democrat or public at large, to increase spending.

If you can’t, you have already lost the debate, since I have shown several, many that the CBO provided commentary on.

Were those just fake?

You just shit on the checker board, insults others, and declare yourself the victor. PROVE ME WRONG SHOW YOUR WORK!!! You claim I’m uneducated and I just copy and paste, THEN COPY AND PASTE YOUR CRAP TOO! Or does it simply not exist because you’re talking out of your ass?

Like or Dislike:

2

0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

Show me the bill Paul Ryan has suggested or his proposal to end medicare.

He has debated, and I’ve watched it, roughly 5 plans for the last 15 years. None were to do away with medicare. Some were to change deductions, and decrease medicare by an equal amount. So that people would decide the spending, and medicare which is not efficient, would not. He shifts where spending goes. He does not seek to end medicare, he seeks to assist people to get private plans, or alternatively to be able to pay their hospital bills, through credits. He says this all the time. And then you say he’s getting rid of medicare. Such bull crap. You haven’t watched or looked into Paul Ryan. If so SHOW ME THE PLAN!!!!!

Prove your points! It’s not on me, and I’ve proven mine as you scuff like the 5 year old you are!

Don’t debate if you can’t handle it! And you clearly can’t hang with the big boys here.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Before you comment:

Yes. I know those are projections, but he comments on what I mentioned. That the Iraq spending is still counted in the fiscal spending for the U.S. It does not disappear.

Also, note that the projections for a few years were much lower than the first three year actuals from the totals above.

Like or Dislike:

0

2

>This was the lie of the year in what was it 2012?

You are clueless and addicted to your training points. This isn’t the current plan moron. Hopefully uw comes and gives you your medicine, boy.

I just scan your bullshit and there is lie after lie and ignorance in every sentence.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/24193-Washington-Mutual-wins-2003-CRA-Community-Impact-Award

“his priority extends to the company’s community commitment. In 2002, Washington Mutual announced a 10-year, $375 billion lending and investment commitment to make the American dream of owning a home a reality for more LMI individuals and families. Washington Mutual’s Community Access program is a driving force in achieving this goal. ”

“Now in its seventh year, the Colloquium has evolved to become an annual meeting ground for senior compliance executives to participate in strategic discussions regarding CRA, fair lending, and housing. For more information, visit http://www.cracolloquium.com.”

Funny, they mention having meetings for CRA fair lending, and made commitments of $375 billion of loans.

This happened a lot, and then WAMU grew by tons of locations. They did this to get that high CRA rating.

Tell me those $375 billion loans didn’t fail. They were not all CRA regulated loans. There are CRA regulations to have ratings, and CRA loans. WAMU did this to get a higher CRA rating to expand and be able to give more loans.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Bob, dolt, for a Medicare citation look at Ryan’s website, idiot. It keeps it the same for people under 55 and turns it from a single payer govt program to a voucher program where you buy it from a private insurer, it has rightly been called a phase out. You don’t know the basics of the current plan, you are an idiot, I won’t discuss it with you until you show in comments to other people you know the basics. You are debating the 2009 plan still, as always. Update your talking points, idiot.

As for climate change, go to he’ll, hit are literally an insane person. Your “proof” was a blog post citing a bunch of articles, almost all of which referenced a single study, which I provided citations for over ages over showing was wrong. You are a maniac on this, it’s truly disturbing. Even if we go with your new talking point about how devastating it will be, which is NOT what the article you cited addressed, Economists are OVERWHELMINGLY in agreement on that as well. As always you are clueless and far, far to the right of the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html

You are wrong about the Iraq budget, because literally all you can read are lunatic fringe sites that peddle bullshit. It’s why you have the gaul to claim we invaded Iraq for “freedom”. You are a nut, and don’t one shit about politics or government, stop commenting. Much of the current debt is also payments due treatment, replacing equipment Oh, and dealing with the shit storm immoral pieces of garbage, like you, cheered for and created over there.

Your daily signal- a far, far, right wing blog BTW, even though you NEVER cite them-article is wrong. Again, imbecile, it’s not 2009,update the talking points you spam Reddit with on your circle jerks. The Obama numbers actually turned out to be right, not the ones this moron based his incorrect article on. So with that are we JUST THE NUMBERS!!!!! Or theory here? You cannot be consistent, because you are a clown. Show the math, and then disregard when it’s off by a magnitude of thousands. 100% pseudo-intellectual joke.

Keep your meltdowns shorter, or I won’t bother. You are an insane person and are clearly in a full freak out, and I don’t want to waste my time on a person that cannot address reality. For example, you can deny commonly known facts, or video evidence, but I won’t bother, because it’s clearly stupid, meaning only a stupid person would make those claims.

“I don’t put up hate speech, you put up hateful crap all the time though. I use facts that you label as hate speech because you are a buffoon.”

Bullshit. You have engaged in outright hate speech against homosexuals for one, supporting Agent’s claims that they are perverts and supporting making them second class citizens because they are not engaging in what you call “normal” behavior. You have also talked in extremely racist terms about African Americans, assuming they must “train” their young men to disobey the police to explain away the murder of a young man shot within two seconds of the police showing up. You are a dirtbag. Stick to your idiot friends who say you are so smart, and research so well, because, like everybody here, they want you to shut the fuck up.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Your numbers:

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320

“The DoD base budget does not include, ironically, the cost of wars. That’s separated out in Overseas Contingency Operations. That’s budgeted at $58.8 billion for DoD, and $14.9 billion for the State Department.  For OCO spending back to 2001, see War on Terror Facts.  (Source: “Mid-Session Review Fiscal Year 2017, Table S-10.” “2017 Budget, Summary Tables, Table S-11,” Office of Management and Budget.)”

Then click on the war on terror and read there.

Not that they mention that the total cost was 1.778 trillion between 2001 and 2017 for the cost of the wars themselves (when not accounting for automatic defense spending) which is about $110 billion per year. That is not the source of our deficits per year.

“Between 2001 and 2017, $1.778 trillion was spent on or budgeted for the War on Terror. That’s emergency funding added to the base budget for the Department of Defense. Congress approves the supplemental funds, but they aren’t subject to sequestration restrictions. For total spending, see U.S. Military Budget. It adds spending on the War on Terror to the DoD base budget and supporting departments (Homeland Security, the Veterans Administration, and the State Department).
War on Terror Timeline and Costs
Here are the War on Terror costs by year. The sources are the DoD budgets and the OMB Historical Tables. The specific estimates for the War in Iraq and Afghanistan War are taken from the 2011 Congressional Budget Report.
FY 2001 – $28.7 billion: Bush asked for $20.8 billion to launch the Afghanistan War. At first, the attack was confined to air strikes to eliminate the threat from al Qaida’s leader, Osama bin Laden.

 The Taliban government was replaced with Hamid Karzai in December 2001. 
FY 2002 – $16.9 billion: Although ground troops pursued bin Laden in the Afghan foothills, Bush shifted his focus to gaining Congressional approval for the Iraq War, which he received in October 2002. In November, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act to create the Department of Homeland Security, a stand-alone, Cabinet-level department to coordinate terrorism intelligence and unify 22 agencies that handled domestic security.

 
FY 2003 – $72.5 billion: The U.S. launched the Iraq War on March 19 with “Shock and Awe,” which cost $53 billion. Homeland Security officially opened its doors in March. The Hussein regime fell in April. The U.S. spent $14.5 billion in an effort to end its involvement in the War in Afghanistan, and turn it over to NATO’s peacekeeping mission.   
FY 2004 – $91.1 billion: The War in Iraq escalated to control insurgents, costing $75.9 billion. Photos revealed torture at the Abu Ghraib prison fueled greater resistance. Afghanistan created a Constitution while bin Laden threatened another terrorist attack. The U.S. spent $14.5 billion on Afghanistan and $0.7 billion on enhanced security.  
FY 2005 – $78.8 billion: The Afghan War costs were spent to protect Afghans from Taliban attacks for their first free election. (Note:The 2011 Congressional Report said the Iraq War cost $85.5 billion, but FY 2016 DoD and OMB reports only list $78.8 billion spent on both wars.)
FY 2006 – $124 billion: Iraq War costs rose to $101.6 billion.

Costs in Afghanistan dropped slightly to $19 billion despite increasing violence.The new government struggled to provide basic service, including police protection. NATO was criticized for not providing more soldiers.
FY 2007 – $169.4 billion: A surge of 20,000 additional U.S. troops were flown into Iraq to keep the peace until the U.S.-backed Shiite leaders could gain better control. This increased costs to $131.2 billion. The Afghan War spending nearly doubled to $38.2 billion. 
FY 2008 – $186.9 billion: Violence escalated in Afghanistan, boosting costs there to $43.5 billion.  while costs in Iraq rose to $142.1 billion. 
FY 2009 – $153.1 billion: President Obama took office in the middle of this budget year. He sent 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan in April, promising to send another 30,000 in December in addition to the 68,000 in place. He changed strategy to address Taliban and al Qaeda forces hiding in Pakistan. This added $59.5 billion to Bush’s FY 2009 budget. Karzai was reelected, although this time amidst accusations of fraud. Obama announced a drawdown of troops would start in 2011. Costs for Iraq fell for the first time to $95.5 billion.  
FY 2010 – $163.4 billion: Obama funded an orderly wind-down to end the War in Iraq. Surge forces were sent to Afghanistan, raising costs there to $91.8 billion, the highest so far.  NATO agreed to turn over all defense to Afghan forces by 2014. For the first time, the President used the OCO to add $300,000 for support departments.
FY 2011 – $159.5 billion: Osama bin Laden was killed by special forces on May 1, 2011. Obama announced he would withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, and 23,000 by the end of 2012. Nevertheless, costs rose to $109.5 billion, while $49.3 billion was spent in Iraq to end the war there. 
FY 2012 – $126.6 billion:  The War in Afghanistan dragged on. Obama announced the withdrawal of another 23,000 troops in the summer, leaving 70,000 troops remaining. Both sides agreed to accelerate U.S. troop withdrawal to 2013 as their presence becomes more unwelcome. OCO funding for support departments skyrockets to $11.5 billion. (Source: NYT, Afghanistan War Timeline, June 22, 2011.) 
FY 2013 – $93.1 billion: U.S. forces shifted to training and support role. Taliban and U.S. reignited peace negotiations, causing Karzai to suspend his negotiations with the United States.
FY 2014 – $91.9 billion: Obama announces final U.S. troop withdrawal, with only a goal of only 9,800 remaining at the end of the year. (Source: Afghanistan War, Council on Foreign Relations)
FY 2015 – $74.7 billion: This includes $53.4 billion to support 11,661 troops to continue training Afghan forces, $300,000 to support a small presence in Iraq, and $4.9 billion to fund various other international terrorism combat activities. (Source: DoD 2015 OCO Amendment)
FY 2016 – $73.7 billion: This amount includes ongoing training efforts in Afghanistan, as well as training and equipment for Iraqi and Syrian opposition forces. It also includes support for NATO, and responses to terrorist threats. OCO support department funding was a record $15 billion. (Source: DoD 2016 OCO Amendment)
FY 2017 – $73.7 billion: The DoD requested $58.8 billion for Operation Freedom Sentinel in Afghanistan, Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and the Levant, increased European support, and counterterrorism. OCO funding for support departments was $14.9 billion. (Source: DoD 2017 OCO Amendment)
Who Spent More: Bush or Obama?
Obama campaigned on defense reduction, dropped the phrase “War on Terror,” and was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for pulling troops out of Iraq. However, his OCO spending since FY 2010 is $857 billion. It’s nearly as much as President Bush’s expenditure of $921 billion. “

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Ugh I’m so pissed off I’m flipping this. You used Cook et al to disprove my numbers. My issue with that one was that the study did not say that humans were causing catastrophic climate change in the majority.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=97-percent-consensus-robust

“”Overall, if present climate trends continue, do you regard the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years as:
Trivial to Catastrophic
1–3 (NET) 13
4–7 (NET) 44
8–10 (NET) 41
Don’t Know 2
Mean 6.6 ”
Thus, less than half (but only just less than half) think the results of current climate trends will be catastrophic, or near catastrophic.  Slightly more, but still less than half think the results will be moderate, while only 13% think the results will be trivial or near trivial.”

I already explained that my issue with you is that you are saying 97% of scientists agree that climate change is going to destroy the world. That is not true. Cook et al said just under half. So does my other link. They actually agree with each other. So I don’t get why you’re still arguing I’m not educated on this issue, and you keep lying to people about the 97% crap.

You need to now respond to Verheggen et al as to why you don’t agree with it.

Before you said that the people were not climatologists, which I pointed out I used the study because those people are exactly the people who will be more prone to exaggerate for their jobs, and the difference to a degree in climatology is very minor to the scientists they surveyed. The bulk of the classes are exactly the same. I know that will piss you off, and what you will say, but it really doesn’t matter at this point because right now we are focusing on two studies with climatologists, both back up what I said, your own source backs up what I said!

And I just proved it!

Like or Dislike:

0

2

Bob , the CRA did not cause the recession, I have destroyed you on this as have planet and uw. Stop spamming . Check into a metal health facility, because you’ve lost it. Or maybe get a friend, loser.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

“Bob , the CRA did not cause the recession, I have destroyed you on this as have planet and uw. Stop spamming . Check into a metal health facility, because you’ve lost it. Or maybe get a friend, loser.”

Then what did? Explain how it happened. I already showed the companies that gave trillions of dollars of commitments to low income housing to get high CRA ratings failed. Coincidence? Apparently my WAMU link never went through, but they had a section on their website citing the CRA and they had meetings on how best to expand low income housing to be hand in hand with CRA regs. There are CRA loans, and CRA regs. You don’t know what you’re talking about. CRA regs required you to give loans to people at poverty level, with little to no proof of income documentation, and to have a high median house to those same people. The bank charter laws go with this, and I have previously quoted this! Wamu expanded by somewhere around 15 locations from 2000 until they fell, and it was primarily through this method to get a high CRA rating. I have proven that, you need to show how it was not what I said that caused their collapse, because their collapse did happen. Was it just coincidence then?

I am not spamming I’m having to address lunatics. I am not a lunatic myself. You have been proven wrong.

Like or Dislike:

1

3

Ron. Bob has already said he ddoesn’t care i

Like or Dislike:

2

1

“Bob,

Go pound salt.

Your side won and you are still a huge DB. And I do not mean defensive back.

Will you hold President Trump to his promises or just continue to hold Democrats responsible?

Your party wanted, they won it, now they MUST own it.

Don’t like, then step aside.”

Screw you. I’m not being a DB. You have consistently attacked the right, and you’re already ready to blame them since they are in charge. I’m putting the breaks on this hypocrite behavior.

I explain who passes and blocks plans. You held Reagan accountable when he doesn’t make laws, and the CBO commented on his drastic desired cuts, for the fact that he had a democrat congress (who has to sponsor the bills) and he passed a democrat sponsored bill, whereas you don’t blame Obama for the worse spending that did not accompany high GDP growth, and an increase in the LPR, when Obama got precisely what he wanted.

I’m telling you, that you have to hold the right people accountable. You go pound salt.

I will hold whomever is responsible, responsible! I will look at who voted for what, and how the bills were introduced, and blocked!

I will not simply state that because he doesn’t get what he wants it is his fault, like you, the two year old does!

And this step aside bull crap, that’s the nature of a DB. I demand accountability, you don’t.

I demand it by practice and by law.

If you have a problem with that, screw yourself. I’ll pound your idiotic unresearched comments rather than salt m’kay?

Like or Dislike:

2

0

By the by:

Have you seen me actually on Agent’s rear end as he actually has been a DB?

Did you catch that?

I don’t see you on the leftists rear ends right now correcting them.

I’m also pointing out he’s wrong about what this election means, and we need to learn the right lessons, and inform people why Trump is the right choice.

We need to remind people of what the left supports, what the right supported, what Trump is supporting that is consistent and goes along with conservative ideals, and that there is a path to getting these ideals.

Instead of you know, saying they are all the same, voting left and right for the sake of getting people out of office and not for the sake of passing plans.

That’s what you did, and you said it yourself. Vote them out was your strategy, you didn’t “vote” based on proposals in the 2012 election. And you still voted Obama by your own admission while stating we needed to “vote them out”.

That is what makes me mad! You lied and said whatever it took to make people see you as moderate, and the next day voted for Obama! Why the heck should anyone listen to you??? Vote out the incumbents! (except Obama and democrats, don’t criticize them) amirite?

Like or Dislike:

2

0

“Bob,

Let me repeat, “GO POUND SALT!!!!!”

You are a right-wing hack who has worse reading comprehension than Agent.”

No. I am most certainly not.

Let me repeat the following, to your “go pound salt” we don’t give up the lessons of the past just because the political parties in office switch. You don’t, and bring up Reagan all the time. He is from 20 years ago, I think I can reiterate points as you still do from Reagan without being called a DB for saying them.

The person here who is a jack, is you. I hold people accountable for their bills.

You are still lying about Reagan to this day, and I can’t correct that now that Trump won? I need to pound salt is it?

You refuse to debate now that republicans are in charge, but would while democrats were?

What changed buddy boy? You being a DB?

My reading comprehension is not lacking, and I’m getting sick of that blanket remark you throw out at republicans. If you have troubles making your point that’s not on me or other people.

If people misinterpret you, be more clear.

I have said to others here I failed in the past, on this same aspect of assuming people would just understand me. Now I quote bill, after bill, after bill, after link, after linking the bills and facts and how the media reported, etc, to reveal lies. It’s on me to do so as well as you.

Idiot.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

“Will you hold President Trump to his promises or just continue to hold Democrats responsible?”

I have to emphasize this.

I do not divert equality of blame, and I do not blame based who is in the majority. You yourself said this is not how to divert blame in the past when you refused to blame Obama.

And also, whether or not I have or continue to blame democrats for what they are responsible for does not make me extreme, provided I prove they are responsible.

The question is will you still hold the republicans accountable for things they didn’t cause?

I proved the spending cause beyond a shadow of a doubt with UW just now.

I’ve proven healthcare, there were good bills, that you yourself were not aware of. You said you weren’t aware of the provisions I mentioned with insurance premiums being deductible, as well as up to a $5,000 debit card to buy insurance, they were debating the amount of such subsidies.

I will blame Trump, solely if someone blocks his plans, or if he passes a plan that does damage.

Otherwise, I won’t.

It’s that simple. You have already asked people here if they will blame Trump when anything goes wrong. NO! That is the logical answer. Not unless it is his fault.

You are a biased idiotic fraud, and without logic at that.

Pound salt is what you need to do, I can tell you’re trying to back pedal on years worth of chances you gave Obama, years with of crap, and in your case, I’m not going to cut you slack!

You are still criticizing and calling Reagan a bad spender, 30 years later! And he has nothing to do with current day lessons, other than remembering that he did not increase or advocate for increased spending.

Like or Dislike:

0

2

>I will hold whomever is responsible, responsible! I will look at who voted for what, and how the bills were introduced, and blocked

Unless it’s the Iraq War, war funding, civil rights history, the last recession, the Bush presidency, the Great Recession and the crash, blocking judicial appointments, blocking Supreme Court appointments, attacking gays, attacking Mexicans, or attacking Muslims, then you will blame Deliberals and ignore reality.

Hey, just like when you attacked women who accused Trump of sexual assault, or defended your friends who you said engaged in sexual assault. Hey odd you did that, lie constantly, clearly have a problem understanding what people are saying, focus on one item for weeks at a time, and were accused of rape twice. Of course they were lying and jealous, like we are all jealous of your intellectual abilities your friends complement you on ALL the time. Weird only about 8% of rape allegations are false but it happened to you so often. Dirtbag, please go away or get help. Definitely stop analyzing and discussing politics and history.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

“Unless it’s the Iraq War,”

We disagree on the Iraq war. This doesn’t mean I don’t hold people responsible.

Do you hold Obama responsible for the chaos in Syria, or his war with Libya?

I do. Only here’s the thing: I AGREE WITH HIS ACTIONS IN LIBYA. Unlike you, I don’t flip when it benefits my party. I have only pointed out Libya in the past to show you guys are not consistent.

“war funding,”

No, untrue. I have commented that inclusive of the Iraq war Bush W’s deficits were lower than Obama’s. This is a fact, and the facts hold people accountable. If that to you isn’t holding him accountable you have an issue.

“civil rights history,”

Are you referring simply to the fact that I point out republicans were not racist or worse on segregation and civil rights than democrats? The 1957 civil rights act says hello, and the fact that more republicans voted for the 1964 bill as a percentage of their make up of congress. That is civil rights history. What specifically am I not holding them accountable for?

“the last recession,”

I could just as easily say this of you. I already proved how the last recession happened. It was the fault of democrats.

“the Bush presidency,”

Generalized, and this means you’re just trying to find things I am wrong regarding and are not listing actual aspects. What specifically in the Bush presidency? Which law? Which deregulation that caused the collapse?? Unlike your side that just says generalized terms, deregulation, I have shown you sections of the CRA regs that cause this, and who passed it! I have shown you how bank charter laws work by comparison. Which law specifically did Bush W take part in that caused the recession? If you simply say “he was president” that isn’t enough and is not an educated statement.

“the Great Recession and the crash,”

You already said this.

“blocking judicial appointments,”

That is the point of checks and balances of the government. Don’t like it? Pound salt. It is what our founding fathers intended, so no one party would have total control. The only alternate is to allow all of them, despite a republican majority at the time in congress and Senate. The congress and senate can block the president or others’s judicial appointments. Get over it!

“blocking Supreme Court appointments,”

Same thing as above, only we actually have evidence when our nation first started that it was common for it to take a year to appoint a judge! So the left has actually tried to coerce people into taking less time, and tells people that this is a reason to throw people out of office. It’s not. And if the left blocked a supreme court justice I wouldn’t really care. Eventually one will get in there. It’s just life.

“attacking gays,”

Wrong. Pence’s law allowed the government to intervene for discrimination, on egregious issues, and disallowed it for small issues. The burden of harm proof was on the gay person, not the government, and that is a good balance. Instead, the left called that an attack on gays, and started a fight over it. With regards to the gay marriage bill, the same thing happened. Republicans listed amendments that would protect celebratory fees and religions. The democrats insisted for gays to have rights there needed to be an attack on religions. And they refused to pass it, and then said the republicans were attacking gays! I am listing specific laws and instances and how your side lied about it, that is holding them accountable, I am not making generalizations as you are!

“attacking Mexicans,”

Wrong. Being strong on immigration. Trumps plan was always what I put above.

Secure the border so criminals don’t come back over.
Deport illegal immigrants.
Provide a path to citizenship for legal immigrants that is streamlined and better.

He spoke about criminals coming back over the border, and Mexico sends their worst, he was referring to the criminals they let back over, and illegal immigrant criminals. He also said, some are good people. He did not attack Mexicans, and again your side lied!

“or attacking Muslims,”

There has been no attack. There was going to be an entire freeze, when Trump spoke in public and said that phrase he quoted a section of his proposal which was later quoted in full. Which said a freeze until proper vetting could be done. Recently, Islamic leaders have affirmed that the people who came in and attacked Brussels and 10 other cities, were refugees. Also, the Refugee violence rate was 56% in the U.K. in one year! It costs about $175,000 per refugee. As Gawdy says, why don’t we help them in their own nation, which allows them to truly live a good life, harms no one, is better cost wise which helps more of us and them, and allows them their ideology and poses no risk to us? This is not racism. This is common sense. Why aren’t we taking Christians? There are a half a million who are seeking asylum but are afraid to go through the UN as they have to do now. Republicans already offered an alternative for asylum seekers to go straight through us. It was rejected. This is when republicans realized this is a political game of decrying racism, and not about helping people, and then they ALSO gave up on helping Christians, because it doesn’t make sense for the reasons above. How can we possibly be against Muslims when we already aren’t expanding Christians coming over here for the same reasons as above for Muslims? You’re a fool!

“then you will blame Deliberals and ignore reality.”

Blame the democrats for what precisely? I work on a one to one basis. Dumb ass.

“Hey, just like when you attacked women who accused Trump of sexual assault,”

No. I didn’t. I quoted reality numbers, and I noted that one of them her own lawyers were attacking themselves. I said they were not credible. If that is so, you attacked the women who accused Clinton of rape. Note I also said we need to stop talking about both of these things. That is balance.

“or defended your friends who you said engaged in sexual assault. Hey odd you did that, lie constantly, clearly have a problem understanding what people are saying, focus on one item for weeks at a time, and were accused of rape twice.”

No. I didn’t in the first point. I said they had not engaged in sexual assault. And they hadn’t, and you are calling things that are sexual behavior, with everyone, yourself included, sexual assault, when they aren’t. I noted consent was there. Who can you assault someone with consent?

“Of course they were lying and jealous, like we are all jealous of your intellectual abilities your friends”

What the hell are you talking about?

“complement you on ALL the time. Weird only about 8% of rape allegations are false but it happened to you so often.”

First, it did, second, you have no evidence of that number, third, that number is high what you just said, so I will commend you on that. 8% is a problem. Most people say 3%, and I know the study on it. I said the 3% was too low. 8% is probably much better, so I will take a break on attacking you and say freaking bravo, and I’m not being sarcastic. But moreover, it happened to me with my ex, with a woman who wanted to be with me and was mad I want after another woman, and it happened to my brother for the same reason. This is common. But that isn’t even the point.

“Dirtbag, please go away or get help. Definitely stop analyzing and discussing politics and history.”

You would like for facts to disappear and for your labels to work so you could feel better and high and mighty, wouldn’t you?

It threatens you, doesn’t it? My facts? So much that you have to accuse me of supporting sexual assault when I clearly did not.

I’m a rapist, after all, I’m Timothy Mcveich, after all, and so are all republicans.

God, idiot. The person who needs to seek help is you.

I believe you’re wrong. You believe that I’m a rapist, bigoted, blah blah blah.

That’s insane.

Like or Dislike:

1

1

“Bob,

I have no problem with an honest, civil debate, but you apparently have no interest.”

No. I am holding people accountable. I have no interest in someone getting ready to put blame where there isn’t blame. You have already done this for the Reagan time frame, for the 1995 republicans, and for the 2001-2006 republicans. I expect you will do it again. I intend on holding people accountable, as you claim to do. Then you belligerently told me to pound salt as I prepared to defend the president against lies. You similarly though, defended Obama. Why?

“I show a willingness to give President Trump a legitimate chance, especially since he has a Republican Congress, to make things better and you ripped into me. He is the new president, not me.”

No. I said I don’t trust you considering what you say about the above aspects. That is not an attack. Your pound salt however, was. It was not fact oriented, my posts were. I fully expect you to start holding the wrong people accountable and to have to correct you.

“I tried to be fair and open and you are the one who has set the precedent that you will blame the Democrats if he fails to fulfill his promises.”

No. I said I refuse to blame him until I know who is at fault. You are the one who said you will blame him if he doesn’t get what he wants, regardless of who causes that. Similar to what you already did regarding Reagan’s spending. I won’t allow that again, because this fight needs to be won. It has been lost every, single, time. Every time Ron! Not once, not twice, EVERY TIME. And we NEED to hold the right people accountable who are preventing spending cuts! Got it?

“He ripped Hillary Clinton for not getting things done as a politician and promised it will be different if he is the president. Well, he has his chance.”

IF, he doesn’t get blocked. Hillary and democrats did not propose spending cuts. When he said what she didn’t get done, he referred to things that she didn’t even advocate after she said she would. In other words, she lied. She was not blocked. Republicans did attempt to get the tax revisions, and democrats put their own spin each time and refused it. Both parties have said what they will do for a long time, but republicans have actually walked the walk in proposed bills, whereas in proposed bills, the democrats have not.

“If you want to treat him like a traditional politician, go ahead, you right-wing tool.”

What does this even mean? I want to go based on facts.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

“Actu says:

>You are a right-wing hack who has worse reading comprehension than Agent.”

Very close though. I think Agent probably qualifies as technically illiterate or very close to it. Bob, you get told over and over by people clearly more intelligent than you that you aren’t comprehending what you read and then like a typical blowhard ass hole you just repeat your initial claim. You can’t comprehend most of what you read.”

Actually, I just proved UW isn’t reading into his own studies or mine. They agree with what I said on catastrophic climate change. Also, my numbers are right regarding deficits, and I proved UW fell for a misleading article and actually thinks the Iraq War was not in Bush W’s deficits. I use dozens of sources, I quote laws, I am clearly not stupid, you disagree, that’s fine, but I use more evidence than anyone here, and I am sick of you mocking my intellect.

“Step away from the hate sites and gay bashing and practice rudimentary reading skills, kid.”

What hate sites specifically? I don’t gay bash! What specifically have I said against gays? Also, I have plenty of reading skills. Stop it!

I’m getting really sick of your bigoted behavior. Because the only reason you think I gay bash, is your leftist labeling of conservatives as anti gay.

I have shown laws that the republicans tried to pass so religions and gays can have rights. I have shown I am anti religious control, and anti government control.

I have shown I like Pence’s plan and why, it allows both sides to be kept in check.

You are such an idiot and immoral piece of garbage.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Bob, you make great points. Point me to the part in a budget from a Bush year that paid the the Iraq War expenditures from 2010, and then the ongoing operations there after that. Thanks.

Go fuck yourself regarding climate change. I’ve explained this in the other thread you are writing 50 pages of rants in, but the story I presented said according to published research papers about 97% of studies confirmed man made climate change. You freaked out and lost your mind because you thought that proved not “almost all” scientists believed that as I claimed. I then then showed studies showed almost all warming, and maybe even more than 100% is due to man. You lost your mind because you don’t know stats. You then cited a blog post that had stories almost all citing 1 study. Every one I looked at was from somebody other than a climate scientist even though you claimed otherwise. You lied or did not read it. I then showed you studies destroying the math in your study but you were stuck in an aspergers loop and kept repeating your blog post was a study – it wasn’t. You then changed your argument again, denied the science, and claimed victory, despite none of your claims holding up. In another story you claimed you linked to the study again, but it was a different study which I pointed out, and as always you denied even when I provided a link which of course resulted in you disappearing because you are a dishonest fraud.

I believe you think I didn’t read the study, because you are a moron who is simultaneously melting down in 5-10 threads at all time, get confused, and can’t remember what you are debating or what lies you have told. But, kiddo, repeating your bullshit over and over didn’t make you a winner, just crazy.

Like or Dislike:

5

5

How can it be a landslide when he is likely to lose the popular vote?

Like or Dislike:

5

3

CTE,

Let me make this clear, ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS’ VOTES COUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I did not realize that you are so un-American.

Like or Dislike:

7

1

Whoever started the ‘landslide’ point in these comments, it doesn’t legitimize an election win. A win is a win.

If the win by Trump isn’t a ‘landslide’ according to the liberal media, that doesn’t have ANY impact on the legitimacy of his win.

However, because SOME in the liberal media predicted a ‘landslide’ by Clinton (and Clinton supporters are now so butt-hurt by Trump’s win they are rioting as a result of the mis-information and bias), they need to ‘eat crow’ and step aside for more responsible journalists to take over and …

Make American Journalism Great Again.

Like or Dislike:

0

2

CTE,

Really?? What happens if we discount TX and FL?

Currently Hillary Clinton (61,782,016) has received nearly 1 million more votes than Donald Trump(60,834,437). That sounds like a whole lot of opinions that should not be disregarded.

Am I the only one who finds it interesting that Donald Trump is now for the Electoral College when he was completely against it prior to the election?

Like or Dislike:

4

0

The House election results indicate a landslide. 3 million more votes cast for Republicans than Democrats.

Like or Dislike:

3

0

Here might be another blow to Socialism; Nancy Pelosi Galore may be ousted. Would the Dems dare to appoint a non-Socialist Dem to her prior post?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/15/internal-house-leadership-battle-shifts-from-ryan-to-pelosi-dems-delay-vote.html

Like or Dislike:

2

2

DePolar, if I remember that famous nasty post, it was from Ron.

Like or Dislike:

3

1

^ reported to IJ staff.

Like or Dislike:

3

1

Or how about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLOEmHmEIwA

Like or Dislike:

3

1

Or this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBAJ42533O8

Like or Dislike:

3

0

She did not win by millions. No current count has a lead that large, presently it is in the hundreds of thousands. Wait until the final count comes in.

Please note that the population grew, you have to take that into account for all elections.

In 2012 Obama had 62,615,406. Hillary has to date:

61,329,657.

In 2008 Obama had:

69,498,516 votes. That was a surge. Voters clearly did not turn out in historic levels for Hillary.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

And you call the people on the right uneducated.

McCain had:

59,948,323 Votes

Romney had:

59,142,004 Votes

Trump has:

60,530,867 Votes

Both Hillary and Trump will gain probably several million votes, as the last estimate I saw said that possibly 5-9 million votes were not counted to date.

It is possible Hillary will pick up enough to be millions ahead due to where the votes are that aren’t counted, but right now you are making it a statement of fact before the results are even view-able.

This means Trump outperformed his predecessors, whereas Hillary under performed. She won’t be topping Obama’s 2008 numbers, even with the votes not counted to date.

For voter turnout though, that is where it gets more interesting.

2008 – 62.3 Percent
2012 – 57.5 Percent
2016 – 58 Percent

That means Hillary may well pass Obama for the voter turnout percentage, but this isn’t a large feat, as voter turn out was not excited for her. More people fell off of voter turnout than came out to support her.

Similarly, Trump will also likely pass Romney by several million numerical votes.

What we learned here is that voters don’t like both of them by about the same amount, that is why voter turnout fell, but people who did vote, cast more numerical numbers due to population growth on both sides. Using the number rather than the percentages is rather misleading. Hillary doesn’t have record level support.

That is what we call an educated post, with all the relevant facts. Not your comments clearly geared toward stating Trump didn’t have support, and Hillary did. Neither of them had support, and the democrat vote has been dropping as the population has grown. The democrat voters are clearly more discouraged than conservative ones. Especially when we consider the 7 million voters who abandoned Obama in the second election, while republicans didn’t grow, they didn’t shrink by that amount.

Keep your eyes on the future. It’s good to see leftist ideology is definitely shrinking, but they are restricting the growth of conservative policy rather well which concerns me.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

He said that, sure, but the people said another thing.

Since this election Obama’s approval rating has gone as high at 56%!!

This was about stopping Hillary, or stopping Trump. It wasn’t about Trump’s plans. Republicans here don’t like him, or not many do. Democrats obviously don’t like him. The moderates don’t even know his plans.

I’ve been showing that.

It’s just Hillary very narrowly was seen as more corrupt, or in my opinion, equally. It’s just the electoral college happened to go to Trump, and we could have easily lost that.

This was not a mandate, and it was not a repudiation of Obama.

Like or Dislike:

5

1

If Dr. Ben Carson is appointed to a Cabinet position, I wonder if we will see the same comments by libbies about Dems in Congress filibustering any legislation that is related to a decision or action he proposes which follows conservative principles?

If that happens, don’t look for the liberal mainstream media to point out their hypocrisy.

Like or Dislike:

4

0

I’m OK with Dr. Carson as HHS Secretary. But I think he’d do much more good heading an education agency. We need to reverse the brainwashing by liberals in our school systems.

Like or Dislike:

3

0

I believe, and perhaps it will be perceived as odd before I explain why, that BHO didn’t play enough golf as POTUS.

My rationale; more golfing would have meant less time with his ‘pen and phone’ to do harm to the USA.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

typo?

I thought he said “historic nemesis”.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

DePolar, actually, he played a lot of golf while POTUS, all at taxpayer expense. All those flights to Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard were a bit on the expensive side. Now, Trump, on the other hand has a course within a short helicopter ride from the White House. He can tee off early in the morning and be back to shred some of those executive orders by lunch. Should be fun. I don’t think he will be inviting Obama to play either.

Like or Dislike:

2

2

I will happily answer your questions after you answer mine first.

Like or Dislike:

5

3

Joe Biden?
Al Gore?
John Kerry?
Hillary Clinton?
Martin O’Malley?
Bernie Sanders?
Tim Kaine?
Elizabeth ‘Lie-a-watha’ Warren?
Chuckie Schmuckey Schumer?

Who did I leave off the list?

Who could defeat an incumbent POTUS Trump in 2020 AFTER he drains the DC Swamp? After he sends millions of Illegal Aliens back to their native lands? After he takes actions to put back to work many of the 94.4 million Americans who are not now working? After he leads the effort to repeal and replace the catastrophic failure ACA? After he starts rebuilding infrastructure, leading to jobs and an economic recovery with greater than 3% GDP growth in most if not all quarters from 2017 to 2020? After he rescinds bad deals with Cuba, Iran, etc. After…. he …. makes …. America … Great … Again?

Like or Dislike:

4

2

No, Ron; the WILL OF THE PEOPLE 8 YEARS AGO WAS AGAINST THE ACA.

Obama and the Dems ignored the Will of The People.

Elections have consequences. The Will of The People will be carried out by Trump. He appears to be a man of his word. Obama and Hillary are both liars who have been caught in lies hundreds of times. Link? http://www.Wikileaks.com

NOW, IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION (above).

Like or Dislike:

3

0

@Ron;

Republicans WERE NOT invited into Dem discussions on ACA. Anything else you said is a lie or moot to the SPECIFIC law.

Volume of votes in prior years is moot to recent elections. The system established by prior generations is called “The Electoral College”. 538 voters determine the POTUS. Every. Four. Years.

NO ONE who understands the rules and follows them, unlike CRIMINAL CORRUPT CLINTONS and CLINTON FOLLOWERS, cares about POPULAR VOTE. It is moot. It is only a crutch for losers who hope to discredit the winner ACCORDING TO THE RULES / LAWS.

Perhaps ILLEGAL ALIEN voters where prevented from voting in 2016? Perhaps CORRUPT CRIMINAL CLINTON was soundly rejected by RESPECTABLE, SINCERE, LAW-ABIDING demo voters in 2016?

Like or Dislike:

1

0

“Before we talk about Democratic candidates, let’s see what President Trump does or doesn’t accomplish. Fair enough?”

No. Not fair enough. You’re still comparing Obama to Reagan on spending. That’s a lie. We can’t trust you to give credit where it is due. You’re still saying the republicans had no alternative to the ACA, and still blast them for trying to repeal the ACA, and I suppose, for constantly trying to pass their plans as well that were not “feasible” as you worded it, and the only thing that made them not “feasible” was that you and others who didn’t like the ACA refused to hold democrats accountable for blocking progress, while stating that the republicans should have somehow magically over come the liberal bias, and made their plans have positive media, and somehow win over an obstructing liberal base or concede to them on issues that were against the public’s interest. I don’t trust you to be fair. Not in the least.

“I hope you have no delusions as to why only the far-right on this site have any respect or you. Not that you seek respect from anyone else.”

Who specifically? Me? The only moderate on this site?

Like or Dislike:

1

1

“So, the “will of the people” only applies when your side wins? Otherwise, it must be rigged? Maybe he is the one who rigged this election.”

Considering how well they destroyed Trump? Yes. It is rigged, inclusive of the media coverage. The only reason Clinton lost is she had scandals. Any other democrat would have won. And that is scary. Look at her votes compared to voter turnout compared to 2016. Trump didn’t win. He basically would have lost big time, and lost the popular vote, because of how much he was disparaged.

To say the Media isn’t already sabotaging anything he does is insane.

People who own multiple new agencies already have articles to rile people up saying Trump is hedging on the wall, and in other places with their other subsidiary they are saying he is going full on with deportations of 2-3 million illegal immigrants, but removed where Trump said “criminal, gang lords” etc.

They are trying any attack they can, which they themselves know are false.

Also, did you know Trump’s immigration plan has ALWAYS (but the media lied about it, so much so I didn’t even know this until recently, which is why I’m pro Trump and even more anti liberal now) been this?

1. Secure the border.
2. Deport criminals.
3. PROVIDE A FAIR MEANS TO CITIZENSHIP FOR THE REST OF MEXICANS.

What part of that is anti immigration? Stopping criminals? Making sure the border is good enough that criminals don’t come back over? (which does currently happen).

But more importantly is the left doing this knowingly with conflicting messages with separate entities that they themselves own.

It’s bull crap! That is rigging! Misleading the population in their favor.

Like or Dislike:

3

1

Agent,

I understand why many would not like Clinton as President. Do you understand why some fear(ed) Trump? Also, will you work with me to make this country great again? I’m not attacking you. I am just trying to talk.

Like or Dislike:

3

2

“I do not plan to answer any libbies’ questions”

There is so much wrong with that statement.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

The stench of Progressive Socialism extends from the White House to AF1.

Like or Dislike:

3

0

@Confused;

Please provide PROOF those perps were Republicans.

I’ll return to see why you THINK ONLY Republicans could have acted in the manner you described.

I’ll associate some of those actions with racists. I have no PROOF they were Republicans. I am open to listening to evidence that indicates such beyond any reasonable doubt.

You equate racism with being a Republican. Please provide evidence to support your claim.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Confused, you remain hopelessly confused. Most people that saw these unruly mobs saw their signs, all hateful against Trump.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

@Ron; I’m still searching in these comments for the PROOF that those people (miscreants involved in damage to property in Mississippi) were Republicans or Conservatives.

None has been offered, but you offer more empty comments.

Like or Dislike:

4

0

reported AGAIN, to JI staff.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

News Flash! The Portland protestors causing trouble were mostly not even from Portland. I smell a Soros rat bent on causing trouble just like in St Louis, Baltimore and other hot spots.

Like or Dislike:

0

3

Again with the total lack of knowledge Agent. The right to protest was not preserved by the Supreme Court today, moron, it was years ago, when the court was conservative. If anybody anywhere could point me towards a less intelligent, informed, or educated person than you I would be shocked.

Also it should be very evident I don’t care what IJ thinks, there are forums full of right wing cretins all over, and I could always just change my name like you did after your ban.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

It has earned him TWO reporting to JI by me, thus far.

I’m debating whether or not the staff should receive individual reports of ALL his / her vulgar, personal attacks.

Like or Dislike:

4

1

And America has awoken to the threat of impending Socialism, likely to have been followed by a mild form of Communism. Awoken just in time to send Socialism on its way, elsewhere in the World, vanquished for at least a generation – once Conservative SCOTUS Justices are seated to replace Scalia, then perhaps Ginsburg and a one or two more liberal Justice.

America’s long national nightmare is almost over.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

I agree to an extent, but only because the benefit of time allowed Nixon to become a piece of history, instead of the central figure in what appeared at the time to be a monumental cluster bomb. Not sure where you were in the early ’70’s but the world was a bigger mess then. Or so it appeared.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Oh I’m angry about that.

And I’m still on Ron, for being a liar. Confused though doesn’t deserve it.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

That’s fair enough, at least I made my point. I don’t have to hammer it home and you’ve made your case as well.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Right wing obstruction is checks and balances.

Stop insulting our forefathers because republicans won’t pass or allow everything the left does.

It benefits this nation.

Like or Dislike:

1

4

Agent,

DePolarBearables is the one who said we can expect to see the Republicans’ plan in 2016. He is also the one who said we need to vote for him to see the plan. He won, now they must reveal the plan, according to DePolarBearables.

President Trump does not need to be sworn in in order to provide the Republican plan.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

Watch your typing before you post Ron. I believe your side said he isn’t President yet, just President Elect. By the way, it is January 20th. Oh happy day. Almost as good as when Reagan was sworn in while our Iran hostages were being flown home. Back then, they wanted no part of dealing with Ronnie.

Like or Dislike:

2

4

Confused seems confused. Confused is perhaps thinking something will prevent Trump from being sworn in. Whether that be an Electoral College revolt, a recount, or some other reason, such as another woman claiming some crime by Trump against her, I am uncertain.

However, I am quite certain that the childish revolts that are currently taking place in Hollyweird, College Campuses, or city streets, will not change the outcome of the Election of Trump to carry out The Will of The People.

Like or Dislike:

2

3

You used the phrase “I believe” to leave some doubt as to whether that (POTUS-ELECT Trump being sworn in) will actually happen.

I don’t understand the motive for maintaining a distinction between ‘President’ and ‘President-Elect’ when the article presumes the subject events will occur AFTER 1/20/2017.

I’m undecided as to whether it is a childish attitude, or rebelliousness borne out of frustration with an inability to change the Will of The People.

I believe we MAY soon have another “Al Gore & The Hanging Chads” incident. Hey! That sounds like a 60’s Surfer Band!

Like or Dislike:

2

3

Now, he’s saying he’ll most likely keep pieces of the ACA. Which one is it, that or this?

“We will repeal on replace on day one, believe me. That I can tell you.” – Donald Drumpf

Like or Dislike:

1

0

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/cbo-confirms-gop-health-care-bill-delivers-what-america-wants-lower-costs/

“NOTE: Earlier this week, the CBO estimated that in 2016 the “average of the three lowest-cost basic plans” under the House Democrats’ bill would be $15,000 for a family. Today, CBO estimated that the Republican bill would lower premiums in the individual market up to 8 percent, the small group markets by up to 10 percent, and the large group market by up to 3 percent. According to CBO average health care premiums in the individual market would be $11,000 in 2016 under current law. An 8 percent reduction in those costs would mean a premium of $10,120 – nearly $5,000 less expensive than the cheapest Democrat plan, which CBO says is unlikely to attract many families, meaning average premiums would be even higher in the Democrats’ exchange.”

That is just one section of difference.

I know what your reply will be, I’ve had this argument too long, you’ll say it doesn’t cover as many people

(forcing people to buy insurance when it doesn’t lower the cost for everyone, is not a benefit. It’s meant to lower the cost, but it didn’t. So this is essentially forcing someone to buy a higher cost insurance plan by $5,000 a year. A YEAR. They could practically self insure, most of the younger age group at that point, and their revenues aren’t helping the older insureds considering their premiums also aren’t going down)

And you’ll say Obama’s plan is more complete and site something about wellness checks.

Those were also in the republican plan, as well as focused healthy food spending for the poor, preventative care funding, a removal of tax limitations on the wealthy, insurance premiums being tax deductible, so now you have $5,000 less in cost, as well as additional money to pay for those plans, and you don’t get taxed on your HSA contributions, which cost my wife over a THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR when it was passed, and other aspects. This is a swing of about $7,000 dollars in affordability for someone who doesn’t get a subsidy. That is not acceptable!

Not when it doesn’t actually bring down costs having these people insured! That is force for no reason!

I just posted this recently to a guy who said the 4 republican plans didn’t exist, and I showed the proposal I liked the most.

This is insanity! Repeat a lie enough and it becomes true yes?

Like or Dislike:

2

1

That doesn’t prevent me from making such a comment.

If you think rules for this message board should constrict the ‘Will of The Posters’ to exercise something akin to a First Amendment right on this PRIVATE website, speak to the webmaster to make such changes. Until then, I’ll form my replies as I please.

Make America Speak Freely Again!

Like or Dislike:

2

1

Hey Ron, we do have freedom of expression and the 1st Amendment that liberals wanted to abolish is not in danger anymore. Hollywierd has promoted a leftist agenda for a long time. I do hope that those who threatened to leave will actually follow through.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Yes. That political guy, (forgot his name) did that to a bar too.

He fined that bakery $175,000 or something like that.

Guess what? He lost this election to a republican.

Thank god the people held him accountable.

Like or Dislike:

2

2

Well, Agent, if you cared to read any of my earlier posts since he’s been elected, you will clearly see I said he is OUR PRESIDENT. I’ve had to support others I didn’t care for in the past as well. I’m not some right wing obstructionist. I’m better than that. And, I’ll support The Alleged Child Raper while holding his feet to the fire. I am going to be critical of him, as I have a right to do as a freedom-loving American. I am hoping he is successful. I am hoping he was playing a racist, sexist, POS character on the campaign trail and will leave that type of temperament back there on that route. If he wants to unify, he can’t keep that rhetoric up. Good luck, Drumpf. I honestly hope you prove my perceptions of you wrong. Go USA! Oh, and I heard you on the radio ask President Obama for some more time and more counsel. Smart move. You’re learning!

Like or Dislike:

2

0

“No one” expected the outcome?

Wrong. The LA Times poll, the cancellation of fireworks over the Hudson River to celebrate Hillary’s win BEFORE election day, the other pollster (forgot who at the moment; look it up), and ME ( I told a friend about the incorrect assumptions used by pollsters in projecting votes cast by demo groups and the SHIFT IN THE COMPOSITION of ‘Independent’ registration voters by underlying political ideology – on Saturday 11/5 ).

Like or Dislike:

1

2

DePolarBearables,

While I will not defend anyone violently protesting, what are your thoughts on the calls for a revolution from the right if Hillary Clinton were to be elected?

Like or Dislike:

2

0

@Ron; I don’t ‘do’ hypothetical questions that deal with PAST results. Do you think I would support ‘revolution’? If so, wrong. I support the rule of law, which is the main reason why HilLIARy lost.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

DePolar, here is another one. Ann Coulter was appearing on stage with other prognosticators on who would be the most likely candidate to defeat Hilliary. When she said Donald Trump, she was booed by the audience. It seems she was seeing things much more clearly than the others.

Like or Dislike:

2

2

And in what way will we be able to quantify that future President Trump has untangled the mess Obama made?

“LPR, GDP, Unemployment Rate, Net Jobs Gained, Stock Market, Spending, Debt, Deficits, Government Employment, Trade Deficits, etc.?

How about how well he unifies the country, expands rights, improves care for veterans, renegotiated trade deals, reformed the tax code, redefine how unemployment is calculated? Did he build the wall?”

Like or Dislike:

1

0

“Since he is inheriting a far better economy than President Reagan or Obama did, and the fact that he will have Congress backing him, it should not take long at all. I will give him 1 year.
Let’s see if you can be consistent in holding presidents accountable.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No. He isn’t. As soon as interest rates go up, as incomes have not risen, we will have a crash.

The LPR is still high, and we are definitely in a horrible bubble that Obama inflated with his plans.

It will take another decade or two to fix this, and that is if we are lucky.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Explaining how you are confused will be in vain because you are too confused to understand it all.

Like or Dislike:

2

2

Yogi, if you keep reporting to IJ for personal insults, why do you continue to do the same? From now on, any personal insult you post is being reported. You have to be held by the same set of standards. Isn’t it true you were banned once already?

Like or Dislike:

5

2

Conserving, thank you for your post! You 100% summed up the thoughts going through my mind as I was reading through the comments. While you will likely get nasty comments back from them on why you’re wrong, this was absolutely the best post I’ve ever read on IJ!

Like or Dislike:

1

2

Conserving–

Thank you for your post. If more people would echo these sentiments, maybe we could actually get started in unifying this country, as Trump himself said he wants to do. He realizes that this is an extremely emotional time for our country. He easily could have come out and rubbed it in the noses of everyone who didn’t vote for him (many of whom are in his own party), but he decided to take the high road and actually wants to work WITH them. That is admirable on his part.

If you’re happy that Trump won, by all means celebrate, but do so civilly instead of shouting down the opposition, name calling, and reporting your dissenters to the IJ. Otherwise, you’re just as bad as those who are protesting.

Like or Dislike:

6

2

Agent,

“Mocking people is their motto and nasty name calling to people that disagree with the agenda is not the way to go”

Practice what you preach. If you have an issue with mockery, name calling and people acting childish when someone has opposing views then lead by example and do the opposite. Your “eye for eye” methodology is flawed and quite frankly dangerous. I understand you are tired of the politically correct culture pushing itself into your life. I am too. That is part of the reason I voted for the exact opposite. Trump may be a lot of the things people say he is but one thing he isn’t is fake. His flaws are known. His agenda is (mostly) known and for once we are going to have our government set in a way where things can get done. I am excited. You should be excited. Don’t ruin what is already spoiling at an incredible rate. I will tell you this once and I hope you understand it. If we have the capacity to accept those who are different than us I assure you that when the time comes where we have another liberal President they will accept us. Extremism from both sides is the reason things are so terrible right now. Forgive or forget. I don’t care. Just move on so others can follow.

Like or Dislike:

2

2

“If you want to review, UW, Confused, Actu’s posts for any length of time, you might change your opinion.”

I would like to echo JUST this part of Agent’s comment. By all means, Conserving, I urge you to review my posts and come to your own conclusions about me, my posts, my tone, etc.

Like or Dislike:

2

2

I don’t believe anything you said in your ‘righteous rant’.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

CNN that is. I still don’t use Fox as a source very often at all.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

But bob, libel laws already cover the scenario you brought up as well as what Trump was getting at. In order to win a libel case now, you must:

(1) prove the defendant made a false and defamatory statement (2) prove the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party, and
(3) prove the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication

If CNN is lying about Trump’s campaign, it’s proven false, it was published, and they knowingly published the lie, Trump can sue RIGHT NOW and win “lots of money” without infringing on their first amendment rights to speak freely.

What exactly does “open up” libel laws mean, anyway? They’re fine as is – someone knowingly publishes a lie about you, you can sue for libel now and you can win. What exactly is he saying he’d change about the current laws?

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Intent can be argued and is a gray area.

For one example (it’s the first that comes to mind – I’m sure plenty of Democrats have done something similar), remember when Trump said “I meant that Obama literally founded ISIS” then he changed it to say he was really being sarcastic and he didn’t literally mean literally?

He changed the intent of what he said. But you can’t change negligence – you were either negligent or you weren’t, no matter what you try to say or do after the fact.

“Proving they are negligent means that you cannot prosecute wilful offenders, doesn’t it?”

Nope. I don’t believe those are mutually exclusive terms. You can willfully be negligent, or you can just be negligent. The former implies intent, the latter does not.