The fact that anyone is supporting this uninformed, anti-Constitutional, reality T.V. star is disturbing. I find it ironic that many of the same people who criticize President Obama for his perceived trampling upon the Constitution, are supporting a candidate who is unapologetically campaigning that he will ignore the Constitution to get his way.
I’m still waiting for him to come out and admit this has all been a joke, and he was just trying to see how far he could take it. It’s honestly something Sacha Baron Cohen would do as one of his characters.
Do people TRULY believe that he’s going to build a 50 foot wall between the US and Mexico, and then have Mexico pay for it? Do they really believe he’s going to deport 11 million people? Do they really believe he’s being audited by the IRS because he’s “such a strong Christian”? That he’s going to “Make America Great Again” but won’t reveal a shred of HOW he’s going to do it? I could go on and on and on here, unfortunately.
Plus, now I have to choose between this and HILLARY???
Folks, the joke’s on us…There’s no WAY this is real!
…and I’m sure all the other strong Christians are audited annually, had never seen the inside of a church (until campaign time), and love the comments he’s made about women in many Howard Stern interviews over the years (Google ’em).
“This is a bible my mother gave me. See…she wrote in it. Vote for me.”
“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass”
“I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn’t matter, but the look obviously matters, Like you wouldn’t have your job if you weren’t beautiful.”
“My favorite part [of ‘Pulp Fiction’] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up.”
“All of the women on ‘The Apprentice’ flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.”
March 2, 2016 at 1:21 pm
BS says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19
1
Regarding Carly Fiorina:
“Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”
““You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass””
This would be a feminist comment. How do I know? I associate with them. This is not a sexist comment.
For example:
All the media cares about in the movie transformers is having a piece of ass on a motorcycle. They didn’t hire a good actor.
This is pointing out sexism against women. It is a feminist comment. I’m sorry. This one is not sexist. I just yesterday on 13 going on 30, watching it with my mom took disgust in the fact that the main character had massive cleavage, and the bad woman, had saggy boobs emphasized by outfits, and I was sure the choice was intentional as the woman with the tight dress didn’t have large breasts. They really fluffed it up for that scene.
““I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn’t matter, but the look obviously matters, Like you wouldn’t have your job if you weren’t beautiful.””
Studies prove him right here. People tend to hire women who are more attractive. My brother has taken classes on this, and it is why he is actually a feminist.
““All of the women on ‘The Apprentice’ flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.””
Having arrogance is not misogyny, and given he is a billionaire and women are attracted to wealth, and he has a very good looking wife, I’m guessing he’s aware of this fact.
When Nicki Minaj sings about all the men flirting with her, is that misandry?
March 2, 2016 at 5:25 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
10
“Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”
Not sexist. Not unless you want to make Obama’s lipstick on a pig comment to Palin sexist.
An insult on looks does not become sexism.
March 2, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
10
““You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever.””
Also not sexist. A woman’s period does affect her hormonal balance.
Ever heard the phrase, boys will be boys? Testosterone causes men to do dumb things. Men even acknowledge it. Does this mean we hate men?
This is an insult, but not sexist.
March 2, 2016 at 5:27 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
9
““I know where she went, it’s disgusting, I don’t want to talk about it…No, it’s too disgusting. Don’t say it, it’s disgusting.””
Again, not sexist. What he is doing here is taunting based on her absence being wrong, but it is not sexist.
It’s not a PC comment, but it isn’t sexist.
March 2, 2016 at 5:28 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
8
Now then, do you have one link, where he says:
Hillary Clinton cannot lead because she is a woman.
Do you have one link where he says:
Women are less capable than men.
Or perhaps: I’m rich because I’m a man. And I’m better than women.
March 2, 2016 at 6:26 pm
Celtics says:
Like or Dislike:
7
6
BS, I guess we will have a young and beautiful Piece of …to be the First Lady. How klassy.
March 3, 2016 at 12:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
10
Celtica,
Mocking how the public is sexist, is not sexist.
So when he says the reason someone is in a position is because she is beautiful celtica, it is not sexist.
I have specifically heard feminists make this comment.
You are delusional. It’s that simple.
Insults do not equate to sexism. Mocking the public based on voting on attraction (proven that people are more likely to hire a more attractive woman) is talking down to the public, not the women. You have a perfectly fair argument in the following statement:
Trump talks down to the public.
But instead, you say he is a sexist, a racist, xenophobe.
Which means if something can be an insult all it’s own, it should remain one until an ACTUAL sexist comment is made.
Stop being a smug punk and learn to use your head.
March 3, 2016 at 1:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
12
Celtica,
I really need to be clear here:
You are not a special snowflake. And don’t tell me it’s sexist saying that. I said the same thing to Ron recently.
You are not naturally more evolved for the sake of it than other people born naturally who you believe are somehow inclined to be sexist. You are not some elite class who knows how the proper way of speech. There is no “proper” way of speech. The very fact that you make these comments makes you the pompous one more than Trump. Your comment was snoody, elitist, and bleeds superiority complex.
You are not superior to Trump.
You are not superior to anyone just about in society.
You are a member. You don’t get to say all the other members of society (specifically the republicans) are racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.
These insults have gone on for far too long and I’m not going to put up with it.
The bigoted remarks are those who believe someone is superior or inferior, based on their race or gender, or in this case, their political affiliation which is far more trivial.
I constantly say to these people “in the 60’s you would have been a racist”. And it’s a true statement.
You are in the habit of labeling groups of people in extreme ways that you cannot prove. Racist. Sexist. Homophobic. Xenophobic. This are the insults the democrats use rather than arguing politics.
You say the republicans do it as well, we don’t label personalities, we talk about demographics and measures of law taken by a party.
If you can’t talk about demographics and measures of law taken by the republicans, that are factually racist, you can’t make the assertion. Is it xenophobic to keep out Muslims when terrorist attacks are a huge risk currently? No. If you believe there is no risk that is a disagreement. It does not mean the word xenophobic should be thrown out.
The reason Trump may win the nomination is that YOUR party is over reacting. This has nothing to do with a republican insult trend. Our party doesn’t throw out those labels I put above. And people are sick of this, and want Trump to over react and throw it right back in their smug elitist faces.
To moderates you sound like Agent making comments about Obama.
This isn’t how you win politics. Quote the quotes. Or you guys could end up losing to Trump. Be better than what you say conservatives are.
The quote you put there for the bible, is not against women.
So show me some. If you want people to dislike Trump it’s going to take more than this.
It’s going to take looking at his policy. Not whether or not he is a racist, misogynist, blah blah blah. That doesn’t win politics. Or it shouldn’t. But it appears to work well when democrats do it against republicans doesn’t it?
It’s hip and cool after all. Labels are fun.
You would have been a racist in the 60’s…Sad to say.
Bob, try to form a coherent message. If it’s consistent that would be a bonus. You were just bitching about how Romney lost because of attacks unrelated to policy. You were wrong, of course, but it’s inconsistent with this statement. Funny how you also say to address policy in an article about a guy being the overwhelming favorite for a party because he has engaged in almost nothing but personal attacks and attacks on groups. The only “policies” he has hinted at are complete fantasies.
Is Romney Trump and Trump Romney, and all republicans are exactly the same?
Is my last comment somehow making my current incoherent? They are separate comments. Maybe your attempt to tie everything together in such a way is incoherent. Perhaps.
I just said in a different post that Romney didn’t lose on policy (and I’m not wrong on this) and in this scenario Trump may actually end up winning due to public anger not due to policy but general anger instead.
These are not the same man.
On an only loosely related note (my political preference which I am in no way obligated to inform you about but you seem to bring up all the time) I personally agree with some of Trump’s policy but I don’t like his character. However, I don’t care if he loses. I would prefer Bernie to win over him. I have said before that if Trump and Bernie were to go head to head, I have no doubt that Bernie would win. Why do you surmise I said this?
March 3, 2016 at 3:04 pm
Aaron says:
Like or Dislike:
11
3
Bob, do you truly believe that you strike fear amog the readers of this site? Believing that you have that ability does, in fact, make you arrogant.
Screw you. I do not post here to strike fear into anyone’s heart.
Whose fear? I have several times said if this continues we will have a Trump nomination.
I have also said I don’t want that.
WHOSE FEAR AARON???
As I said to Celtica, your insults are not ok against republicans, and I’m sure you do it on a regular basis as right now you’re not relying on the statement of concept, you are bullying based on how I said something.
The answer is My fear. MY FEAR of Trump.
I am warning someone not to make an action or get punched in the face,
Or to intimidate,
I am warning them of danger.
If I said “I’m warning you buddy, there’s a fire over there, if you walk into it you will be burned”
Is that arrogance?
March 3, 2016 at 3:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
10
Poor wording there:
I am not warning someone with the intent that I will punch them if they don’t do something, or to intimidate them.
The wording there might be confusing.
Listen Aaron, with someone as moderate as me, if that is the best you have, go home.
Trump supporters on the libertarian side are smarter than you. They see through those attacks.
They see through your partisan crap.
And they believe that Trump might not be establishment partisan crap, due to your comments.
And this is why I have warned several people here.
Not in arrogance any more than people speaking out against Trump that are liberals.
They are also warning people. Are they arrogant?
You are clueless.
March 3, 2016 at 5:57 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
10
2
Aaron, I have to agree with Bob here when it comes to his use of a warning. Although he has made basically the exact same statement in the past as how you interpreted it. Usually it’s when he’s nice enough to be “lenient” with people.
February 29, 2016 at 5:52 pm
integrity matters says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
16
15
First, I am not a Trump supporter and have the exact same problem with him saying he will do “whatever” in spite of the Constitution.
That said, I find it ironis that many Obama supporters are now “Constitutionalists” and are complaining what Trump might do to the Constitution. You can’t have it both ways, folks. Obama has opened the door with “his phone and pen” and now every Bernie, Donald and Hilliary think they should be able to do the same. Slippery slope; I’ve said it before.
@ Louie: Regarding the 50 foot wall, it could happen and the funding could be via the “de-funding” of the aid to Mexico and several other South American countries. I’m not saying it will happen, but I am saying that it is feasible.
Dear Integrity, “…Regarding the 50 foot wall, it could happen and the funding could be via the “de-funding” of the aid to Mexico and several other South American countries. I’m not saying it will happen, but I am saying that it is feasible. …”
You should share this with Trump as he actually hasn’t shared how he will fund the Wall. Actually he hasn’t shared squat. But it will be huge and he will hire the best people — which appears to be illegal Polish workers that he can pay under the table when he pays them at all and go without proper safety equipment,
Hi Celtica…How have you been? I’ve missed your banter.
Actually, Trump said this a month or two ago and it did not get much media pick up. I barely caught it in a sound bite.
Regarding your statement about illegal Polish workers without safety equipment, I must have missed that news bite. So, are you slamming him because they are illegal?? Polish?? Paid them under the table?? Improper safety equipment?
It can’t possibly be because they are illegal or Polish…that would be discriminatory. I can’t remember if you are in favor of keeping the illegal aliens here because they are “dreamers” and it’s not their fault that they broke the law.
FYI…I am not a Trump supporter so I really don’t care how you bash him. Although, I am in favor of putting up a wall and methodically deporting all the illegals (regardless of their ethnicity) over a period of time. If they are here illegally, the next President should UPHOLD the existing laws and start sending them home.
I know actually following the law is foreign for some (many) of the people in this country, but it is the right thing to do to put us back on track to fiscal responsibility and homeland security.
Hi, Integrity Matters – missed you too! As for that soundbite: “… Regarding your statement about illegal Polish workers without safety equipment, I must have missed that news bite. So, are you slamming him because they are illegal?? Polish?? Paid them under the table?? Improper safety equipment? …”
That was in the last debate not even a week ago. Not really a sound bite…
I took it personally because you replied to my post and I am notoriously labeled an Obama supporter on this blog. Yes I voted for him, but I do not think he is perfect, a savior, or anything like that. At the same time, I also do not believe he is as anti-constitutional as many try to portray him. Nobody has proven him to have done anything that is blatantly against the Constitution. If he has, he should be impeached.
March 2, 2016 at 2:43 pm
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45
7
Integrity, you are mostly full of it on the Constitution, but I’ll ignore that. Obama has been bad on the Constitution, mainly by codifying and entrenching the policies Bush enacted, it will be a scar on his legacy. You are in a fantasy land regarding paying for the wall, and it’s a perfect example of what a joke conservatives are when it comes to policy. Something like this gets pushed by a right-wing group and then repeated as if it’s an option in reality. The same happens with Ryan’s yearly fraudulent budgets.
The total aid to Mexico yearly would cover less than 1% of the conservative estimates for the cost of the wall ($17.5B). That doesn’t account for maintenance, huge staff increases to monitor it, etc. The entire amount of aid to S America would cover about 3% of the cost to build the wall. It’s a joke to put this forward as a policy, the people who repeat it are jokes, and/or completely uninformed. Although it’s better than the 0% conservatives came up with to fund the Iraq War, so kudos, I guess. Oh wait, the pull paid for that, right?
Much of that aid goes to stuff like HIV treatment, health, etc. Revoking it would be disastrous, and in reality would lead to more immigration to the US, the majority of which is done by driving in, not crossing the border on foot.
Trump is successful with Republicans because he’s their perfect candidate. No interest or knowledge of policy, but full of ignorance, racism, bigotry, misoginism, and a complete disregard for reality.
He won’t be impeached because there are not enough democrats with enough balls to do the right thing for this country.
UW: regarding the rest of your diatribe, you are trying to compare an annual amount of aid to a total cost for a project that would obviously take more than 1 year to build. This is a typical left wing trick to over emphasize their point. Even if the numbers were correct and it took 100 years to complete IF we required Mexico to pay for it all, SO WHAT!! Our country would be better off for the protection of the future generations. Maybe a better source for funding the wall should come from de-funding Planned parenthood. They get over $500 million from the government annually.
You’re also forgetting about the economic stimulus that would bring to the US with the various number of jobs that would be created and the tax revenue associated with it.
Technology and video monitoring would mitigate the amount of staff needed to monitor.
Something has to be done about the illegal immigration problem whether they walk, drive or fly here. What is your candidates plan? The democrats want to make them citizens so they have more people reliant on the government to assure their votes for future elections.
Are you really that blind to see what a drain our immigration problem is on our economy? We are all paying the cost through higher prices for everything. Not to mention the security risk.
Even if the US taxpayers had to pay for the wall, the annual amortized cost would be a fraction of the overall budget and significantly less than the annual cost of Obamacare.
Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4.
Many on there Ron will try the typical argument though that I mentioned.
You’ve actually pointed out this kind of thing before and his reply was similar to what I imagine it will be this time.
March 3, 2016 at 11:48 am
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28
2
Integrity, my “diatribe” was an attempt to show that the economics behind the plan are absurd. It would have been easier to say the wall bullshit is aimed at, supported by, and repeated by idiots. If the wall takes 100years to build it’s even more pointless. The overall point is showing how a certain type puts forward outright fantasies and pretends they are economically viable plans that should be taken seriously. Yes it could be done over years, but it wouldn’t make it much more viable.
Trump’s plan actually wouldn’t bring any real economic stimulus to the US (pretending it’s an actual plan for a second) because it would be paid for by Mexico and in reality it would have Mexican workers. But that’s bs, because the plan is bs. Now, if you want stimulus there are thousands of policies we could pursue as stimulus that actually have multipliers associated with them, but republicans won’t allow that unless they are in the White House.
Your article on Obama and the Constitution is absolutely moronic. Aside from the fact that many of these have been ruled constitutional by the supreme court, many are outright retarded, and show an Agent-level of understanding on these topics.
The best probably is the one about the UN security council. Sec. 9 bans a title of nobility, that’s not what this is or was. Also, the UN isn’t a foreign state. They are just idiotic, as is the wall, as are Trump supporters, and as are seemingly every modern conservative in the US. I rarely encounter one who is competent to discuss this stuff on even an elementary level, which explains Trump’s ascendance in this retard shit show.
No, they are not “retarded” they are real issues that should not be happening.
Do what you do when you try to see a problem with republicans, and do it with democrats.
How hard is that? Will you hold them accountable for anything?
I need to see it. Prove it. Say something big you disagree with democrats regarding.
I have shown mine. You show yours. Because with that partisan of a reply to Integrity, only one person is ignorant. You are blinded by partisan team like mentalities.
March 3, 2016 at 3:41 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
5
8
UW – Believe what you will. Justice Roberts overstepped is bounds when ruling on Obamacare by interpretting that the healthcare premium could be considered a tax when the democrats and Obama flat out said it wasn’t a tax.
The Supreme Court rulings have been politicized with many of the left wing justices are ruling with their ideology and not based on Constitutional law.
Obama has ushered in a state of lawlessness. He picks and chooses which laws he wants to enforce. That is a dictatorship because he thinks he is above the law.
You want to compare the economics of a plan that is absurd. Look no further than obamacare. How many of you democratic idiots believed the load of crap that Obama was going to provide insurance coverage for at least 15 million uninsured people, many of which would not pay for it, and everyone else is going to get an average reduction in premiums of $2600! And you believed him??!! And you still support him??!!! And you believe Hilliary is going to be any better??!!!
Look in the mirror the next time you use the word incompetent!!
March 3, 2016 at 6:09 pm
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
2
Integrity, you are woefully misinformed. The right wing is using the court to create laws through judicial activism. See Citizens United for example, or when they recently said all people have an individual right to own guns, something the court has been against for all of history, because of the “well-regulated militia” part of the Constitution. There was also the recent example where they appointed a president, said it didn’t set a precedent for the first time in history, and then when questioned on his illogical, inconsistent explanation Scalia said to just deal with it. As far as Roberts, unsurprisingly you’re uninformed. He wrote a historically bad opinion and both said it was and wasn’t a tax.
The only way you can make your claims about Obamacare and the economy is if you ignore the facts. Prices have increased less than projected without Obamacare, meaning it’s better for the economy. Also the health insurance industry was in a death spiral which could not have covered most of the people now covered.
But come on, the wall is a plan that is just patently absurd on every level. Just pushing it shows you are completely incompetent. It’s a fantasy.
March 4, 2016 at 5:30 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Integrity, it appears the Progressive Socialists do not want to hear the truth from you. What else is new?
March 2, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
6
13
integrity, the fastest way to taking care of our border problem with Mexico is to stop their trucks at the border and not let them through. They will get the message real fast.
Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed this legal standard, Trump could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress, Leslie said.
As he can’t change the first amendment standard by an executive order or with an act of Congress, how exactly could he change it then?
Thanks for explaining that – I couldn’t wrap my head around what feasible options exist for Trump to effect that change if he were to be elected President.
He may have studied and taught about the Constitution, but he definitely is not following it. As far as principles and ethics are concerned, Obama either doesn’t have any or he doesn’t know the true meaning of those terms. Integrity is another attribute that he is sorely lacking.
What has President Obama specifically done that is not following the Constitution? Be sure to cite your source of the evidence and the a specific portion of the Constitution to which it applies.
Why should he? If he replies you are then going to explain other presidents who have done the “supposed” same thing (false equivalency).
Not all executive orders carry the same weight.
This is typically the problem conservatives have.
Then you will try to say Obama isn’t trying to move toward 2nd amendment removal. Because he’s just an innocent guy taking steps. No. That is how it always happens. Steps. Not all at once. To say democrats aren’t inching toward gun control is to say republicans aren’t inching toward birth control.
Now see I don’t say that. But you do, and are, a hypocrite in the way I just stated.
You say republicans are inching toward birthing control.
You say Obama isn’t inching toward gun control.
It’s just so stupid to see you post here. Get over the image appeal and what is cool, and start going after your supposed beliefs in smaller government.
March 2, 2016 at 1:20 pm
Confused says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16
6
why should he? If integrity says obama is not following the constitution, he should do his due diligence and quote something. This is the exact same logic you used when you told Insurance is fun to “Please quote one. I’m serious. Do your due diligence.” don’t be a hypocrite
March 2, 2016 at 1:49 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
8
9
Bob,
When people ask me for examples, I provide them with a cited source. Is there a reason why I should not be extended the same courtesy?
While I am personally against all EOs, and some may be unconstitutional, there are allowed.
When did I say either, “You say republicans are inching toward birthing control.” or “You say Obama isn’t inching toward gun control.”? Like you said, “Please quote one. I’m serious. Do your due diligence.”
See how I responded without any insults? Try it some time.
March 2, 2016 at 1:54 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
7
6
Bob,
When people ask me for examples, I provide them with a cited source. Is there a reason why I should not be extended the same courtesy?
While I am personally against all EOs, and some may be unconstitutional, they’re are allowed.
When did I say either, “You say republicans are inching toward birthing control.” or “You say Obama isn’t inching toward gun control.”? Like you said, “Please quote one. I’m serious. Do your due diligence.”
See how I responded without any insults? Try it some time.
March 2, 2016 at 1:55 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
10
7
My apologies for the duplicate posts and typos.
March 2, 2016 at 1:58 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
8
11
Confused,
I am not a hypocrite. Ron has refused the evidence. Integrity has already posted what he believes, and Ron wants to use false equivalency again.
Also, I did just post my evidence, or I referenced it rather. Obama has crossed lines on executive order purpose and scope.
The numerical aspect isn’t the issue. Ron then always says Bush W issued more. Bush W didn’t have lawsuits go through due to his executive order, and have them struck down, like Obama has. This means quite literally that Obama overstepped his bounds. While courts stopped him, he overstepped his bounds.
For the crux of your talking with me, if you don’t want me to insult you, don’t talk the way you just did to me as if you’re superior. Also: You don’t give links nearly as often as I do.
Moving on:
Integrity already has given executive orders as an example, and you know this. You twice prepared for it in order to set up a scenario where he could not win if he replied.
The second time was with me, where you said:
“While I am personally against all EOs, and some may be unconstitutional, there are allowed.”
This is because you have said this before to Integrity, and that is what you were setting up to have happen when you asked for examples.
There’s your link. This means he issued an executive order that was against the law to issue.
When we go to the health law, he has numerous times changed the health care law after it was passed by executive order. I believe this is bordering breaking the law. He passed a law with congress then changed it in ways they never agreed to. This is also manipulating the public.
Semantics. Tell me this is someone who respects the constitution.
You have two examples now. I can’t post more than one link without the post being delayed so I will give you the second link next.
You know darn well I almost always source quote.
So stop implying you do it as much as me. I then even say when I do, look, 5 from me, none from you.
In the past, Integrity and Ron have already had this argument. Ron has this argument with nearly every conservative here.
He has another one similar. He tries to define socialism, and then force republicans to say Obama is not leading to socialism.
Now let me use an example:
Communism is defined as:
“a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”
Ron should know, that the definition of a word is not always how it plays out in the public. You don’t go to the dictionary to see if we are becoming socialist in nature. A dictionary I might add which may have some bias and disagreement in what socialism is by compared to the public.
A person who comes here from Russia, might very much so dislike communism, while very much so wanting: Each person to be paid according to their abilities and needs.
Ron is vying for this argument with republicans. Right now he wants for Integrity to say Obama uses executive orders to say he is against them, and all presidents use them and they are not unconstitutional.
Now the same thing applies here:
The definition:
“not in accordance with a political constitution, especially the US Constitution, or with procedural rules.”
Many people who come from a country where someone issues a court order to modify a law believe it is unconstitutional, and only need a supreme court ruling to verify that (as was the case in the immigration ruling, so Obama did violate the constitution with it’s passing). So not only did he literally violate the constitution, he did it in the clear public’s definition of being unconstitutional.
Instead of playing on word play, let’s focus on right and wrong, and go with what is best to do.
What Obama did in my two examples, was not best to do.
March 2, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
12
6
bob,
Neither of those links indicate that any of President Obama’s EOs were found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. You know, the only court with authority do make that decision.
Try again.
I apologize if you took the way I was responding to your disrespectful, demeaning and vulgar posts as being superior. It was not my intent. I was trying to respond in a language that you may understand since you were not correctly comprehending the message I was trying to convey.
Do you have any interest in beginning a new era of debate without ANY insults, vulgarity, references to poor reading comprehension, putting words in each other’s mouths, or demeaning words?
March 2, 2016 at 2:56 pm
Ron says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37
7
Bob,
One other thing, shouldn’t intelligent conversations/debates require people to use the correct terminology and use the proper context? Allowing people to alter the definition of words solely to make their point is unfair debating. Don’t you agree?
A: Not every unconstitutional action is going to be found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. In order for the SCOTUS to trigger there needs to be a lawsuit. When republicans sue, they damage their image to moderates. Soooooo…Catch 22 there perhaps, caused by you, which is why I don’t like your political methods?
B:
Changing a law over 70 times, more than half of those without the authority of the congress, is not unconstitutional in that it goes against the intent of the founding fathers?
This is where I said your issue is with how you try to define a word, and you won’t see someone as unconstitutional until they fit into that.
I’m sorry, but this is not what our founding father intended, and by default, it is unconstitutional.
C:
I have little interest in taking that route because of your debate methods. Even when you don’t say insults, you have absolutely no proper form in debate. Until I see you shift hard center instead of these comments anti right, and until I see you stop the attempts to make conservatives like integrity look bad, no. We can’t have a civil discussion, because you are the problem with the U.S. right now.
You’re more invested in image than policy. As is the reason behind Trump. Trump wouldn’t be here if it were not for pissed off republicans and libertarians.
So it’s a big deal to change how we talk about politics.
It’s time to be frank. It’s time to forget the image. It’s time to debate the issues. Not do one liners, zingers, and attempts to label the whole republican party as being anti facts and unreasonable people who accuse liberals of stomping on the constitution without reason.
They have reason. And it’s absurd you don’t see that reason.
It is time we hold our presidents to a higher standard. Obama, has not respected the constitution. And it’s time we say it.
March 2, 2016 at 3:23 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
7
10
Ron,
You are manipulating the conversation again.
Should they define communism by a text book definition, and say that if it meets the definition it is bad,
Or should they define what is occurring by calling it forms of communism, or socialism, so that it is separated from typical capitalism, and therefore we can take actions against it?
I’ll throw it back at you. How is what Obama does different than Bush in terms of actions that are socialist?
Do you believe they take different actions in those terms?
Now, do you believe they take different actions and that we must weight those actions to see which is damaging?
Now what is worse in doing that:
Calling them all the same.
Or, while stating it leads to socialism, you make it distinctly different than capitalism, and you make the case against it?
You are crating a path where republicans cannot stop the path to socialism, because the definition of the word not yet meeting what is occurring in the public (from your point of view, and a dictionary, but other dictionaries disagree, and other classes that teach on the matter disagree. If this were a simple issue, when classes were taught on it they would say, GO READ THE DICTIONARY, but they don’t, do they?)
If Trump wins there could easily be 7 far right-wing justices, with many outright fascists like him, there are no abuses that wouldn’t be inconceivable. He has said he would torture and behead people as well as specifically target innocentpeople family members, and recently said he would have the Justice Department target political opponents. The Constitution is irrelevant under his, and conservatives’ ideal world.
Bob, sorry to interrupt your dressing down of Ron, but allow me to quote Marx. He said – the goal of Socialism is Communism.
You also said the reason for Trump is pissed off Republicans and Libertarians. I would argue that the voting public in general is really mad at most politicians, both RINO and Progressive Democrats. It has reached a zenith of acrimony against them. Trump has been successful because he has tapped into the anger felt by Americans with the current political system. Anything to get rid of the career politicians who have made such a mess. People can’t stand anymore of the Progressive Socialist policies of Obama. If you have been paying attention to how these primaries have been going, you will see the Democrats have very little interest in Hilliary or Bernie. Nevada was a good example – 12,000 votes combined. The Republicans had over 100,000 votes cast. Republicans are energized this year and their numbers dwarf what Hilliary & Bernie get. By the way, Bernie has been correctly labeled a Socialist, but he may be closer to a Communist.
I left the democrat side out of the argument. I told my brother this yesterday, your same rough concept.
The turn out is high for republicans no doubt, and independents are registering republican in order to put forward someone to beat Trump, and others just want Trump. I said that if even half were registering due to rage due to democrats, it would be an automatic landslide win for Trump due to the rage democrats have currently as well. The democrats have missed what is happening. It wasn’t just the republican party that got pissed in 2008.
But more importantly if even half of those independents throwing out Trump votes actually want him, well…The election could be interesting.
My thoughts on Trump are that he is revolutionary in speech, but more moderate in action.
Due to that, I don’t view trump as anti establishment. I don’t like him for the same reason the same people in my voting area tend to like him (I don’t mean republican registered voting area for my background. My first conservative vote was Dino Rossi). I’m more of a libertarian. And I know the demographic well. The anti establishment surge is huge in that area.
But I don’t see Trump as anti establishment.
I used to see Ted Cruz and Rubio as that until they started attacking Trump’s character. And being that I know my demographic, I expect that those attacks are the very actions causing people who are pissed off to think Trump is anti establishment policy. He’s anything but.
Do I think he’s better than Hillary after looking up more about him? Yes.
But really, is that saying very much? Most libertarians hate Hillary.
I can show you videos of some of the most popular libertarians out there on youtube (with hundreds of thousands of views on each video, or millions for some) who have specific videos mocking Hillary, or outright saying “Vote anyone but Hillary. ANYONE”.
Bob, I think some of the reason Bernie is doing fairly well is the anti-Hilliary vote. People really don’t like her sorry lying, untrustworthy act. By the way, I figure that Trump will govern more moderately than he sounds. He is someone who will not take it and gives back in kind. He has driven the pundits and media types wild because they can’t figure out what he will say or do next. The establishment is just beside themselves and think he will upset their golden applecart. It needs to be. When a man is self funded, he is not beholden to lobbyists or special interests. It is quite interesting to see this play out.
I think you’re a little off on the Nevada numbers though.
I’m not pointing this out to mock you. Be ready to make your points against guys like UW.
He doesn’t fact check his own material but he’s likely to say you are not reliable based on things like this and use it to recruit moderates like Ron and Rosenblatt (if they truly are moderates).
These are the ones we need to win over. Let’s let these guys look bad falling over Trump, and then be the rational ones.
Bob, I was going by the numbers on the screen scrolling all night on Nevada. I thought it a bit odd that Hillary only had in the high 7,000 votes and Bernie in the high 3,000 votes in a Presidential primary. That is more like a local mayoral race than a Presidential Primary. In any case, there is far more interest in the Republican primaries than the Dimwit party. Hilliary and Bernie have nothing to sell except more Socialism, more government control and more free stuff.
March 3, 2016 at 4:39 pm
actu says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18
3
Bob seems a little rattled after losing to uw so consistently lately. You looked like an amateur debating a pro on the minimum wage. They presented a long but interesting study on minimum wage that showed the economists mostly confirm what they argued and the ones who did not had little data and less rigorous studies.
March 4, 2016 at 1:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Actu –
Don’t act like a fool. Showing 3/4 studies disagreeing with him doesn’t make me lose the argument.
Every study tries to show why every other study is wrong. Only one is correct.
Harvard students and a Bureau official were my sources. If a Bureau official is not included, nor is the majority of studies, I don’t know what is.
They looked at a $10.10 federal minimum wage. This would be a much lesser affect than to $15.
These are easy numbers Actu. I looked like an amateur?
Biden himself said 97% of businesses have $250,000 in revenues or less.
Accounting for leasing these make very low profit margins.
These firms cannot afford to have a hike of $10-$15k per employee per year. It’s just math.
Refute any point I have made. If I am wrong, point out where.
UW has not pointed out where, he has pointed to studies that he believes settles the math.
It certainly doesn’t.
So are you liberals now disregarding the CBO? The same thing I have seen Ron call a crime of the right?
March 4, 2016 at 1:14 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Just to note:
I am rattled by UW’s absurd lunatic commentary here.
He is clueless. And the last few arguments I warned him what would happen if he kept on calling me a dolt due to differences of opinion.
I’m rattled by his general lack of knowledge and elitist behavior. Those two hand in hand are incredibly annoying.
March 4, 2016 at 1:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
And also:
Look at the debate between Biden and Ryan.
Go watch it. He repeats that 97% line during it, and tries to state that businesses that file in that tax bracket would have a tax increase because as Biden said, Ryan was lying about the ability to decrease the rates by 20%, broaden the base, and to be revenue neutral. He said Ryan would have to get rid of the mortgage credit, which he did for a fact say would raise taxes on the middle class, and by default since he was talking about businesses as well, he meant businesses.
I then went over a $500,000 loan because he is so concerned with mortgage loans and businesses that fall under marginal rates.
This means Biden DID for a fact say that a number far lower than even $10,000 would harm small businesses in the form of a tax increase.
So Biden must not have go the memo on what UW is saying.
That, or he’s just talking out of his rear end to win over the public when it suits him.
If you disagree, explain how I am wrong, instead of saying how rattled up I am.
Debate the topic at hand, and not something that has nothing to do with it.
My character may be fun for you to bash (like the zealot you are) but if you want any credibility at all, start talking numbers.
Also I might add Biden says “It has never been done before” to which Ryan points out is has with JFK and Reagan,
To which point he says “Oh now you’re JFK!!” and rolls his eyes. You see there’s a problem there. First he says it has not been done before. Then he admits is has, but only by people that are not Ryan.
Also, I should note that the intent of broadening the base and lowering the rates, is to bring in more revenues dynamically. They said it is impossible statically. Yes. People disagreed it would work. That does not mean that Ryan was lying and would raise taxes on the middle class. It meant Ryan and Romney would put what they said into place, and if it worked, it worked, if it didn’t, chances are they would remove it or their successor would, but I doubt they would instead say: Ok we are getting rid of the mortgage deduction!
Biden should have simply said that. Instead of calling Ryan a liar, about getting rid of something he said he wouldn’t, he should have simply said:
I don’t think it will work.
Ryan would then say: I think it will.
They both make their cases. It ends.
March 4, 2016 at 2:59 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Ok I really have to know:
What in those posts with information have you disliking it Actu or UW?
You’re not even refuting the evidence, couldn’t have possibly watched the video on work hours,
So when you reply you do some sort of a comment calling me a dolt with a disagreeing source,
And when you don’t, you just dislike and hide all my posts.
This is lunacy. I’m tired of it.
I have not disliked a single post. My other posts can be considered unlikable on the basis of character. These ones below are solely links to facts, no insults, etc.
You don’t have the right to dislike it without even considering the information contained therein, which as I said, is an impossibility due to the speed of the dislike.
This is where you find ideological voters, who do not think. If they form a conclusion before review of evidence that they don’t like what they are hearing…
Well, it limits their thought.
March 3, 2016 at 1:44 pm
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22
3
Agent, Fake History, PhD.
Actually that was Lenin. Marx however did say that “Democracy is the road to socialism,” and “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”
Now as an expert on Marxist-Lenist thought, please explain why you hate democracy or why you hate peace. Maybe you are finally acknowledging and stating, “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.” Hopefully those poor souls forced to work for you don’t hear this talk.
Maybe you just literally cannot make a single statement that is true. I’ve never seen a person so consistently wrong. It’s amazing.
And speak of the devil, you just did exactly what I said you would do.
Are you really trying to defend Marx or Lenin? Is that what I’m seeing?
I know that those under 30 have little to no fear of communism and socialism, but they generally try to avoid outright stating that they agree with it though.
Is that what I just witnessed?
UW you are not educated if that is what you are trying to advocate for.
Read your own comments. Of course a socialist is going to try to make socialism appear to be peace. Agent is not anti peace due to being anti socialist.
Of course a person who advocates socialism is going to say that democracy leads to it. However, must studies see that socialism and communism steer away from the control of the people from society and in favor of government tyrants. Did you miss this in history?
So you’re trying to say he must hate democracy because Lenin claims that Democracy leads to socialism?
Perhaps agent likes democracy, and believes the socialism removes it.
The only possibility is that you believe that socialism increases democracy and agree with Lenin.
I cannot believe my eyes.
Also:
STOP INFLATING AND DEFLATING THE LIKES HERE.
I now know it is you. Only extremely partisan people engage in this behavior.
I have not disliked a single post from you or Ron. I am proud of that fact.
March 3, 2016 at 6:57 pm
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
2
“And speak of the devil, you just did exactly what I said you would do.”
Interesting that me pointing out that Agent is making an incorrect statement is somehow a negative towards me. It should be noted that the post you corrected Agent on was about an incorrect statement, like every statement he makes, proving my point even more.
I am not defending Marx or Lenin, but giving Agent a hard time, because he’s dull. You are correct being anti-socialist does not make Agent ant9-peace, but he is still anti-peace based on the people and policies he supports.
” Only extremely partisan people engage in this behavior.”
You are an extremely partisan person. You pretend to be an independent but every statement you write makes it difficult to claim that with any credibility.
“I have not disliked a single post from you or Ron. I am proud of that fact.”
I’m not 100% sure what you mean with this. If you mean downvoted, or thumbs-downed I don’t really care one way or the other, but tend to be with you and rarely vote. I know if a comment has 10 votes down more than up it seems to get hidden, and I oftentimes do the up just so it’s not hidden. But I think those are pretty irrelevant anyways, and not really based on fact.
March 4, 2016 at 9:29 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Thank you for showing your true colors Comrade. Here all this time I thought you were just an ill informed young punk with a Common Core education.
March 4, 2016 at 1:43 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Isn’t it funny how the last few months Ron has constantly said how he uses links the most here,
Yet I have not seen any from him in this particular post. Nor the last few times that he said he uses them the most.
He uses sources alright. In ad hominem style which is flabbergasting. What I mean is: He says he uses sources as a character trait, to win when he doesn’t use them.
He then mentions this to me, and in the same insurance journal article that he does, I use over 5 links, while he has used zero.
This has happened now for months where I use link, after link, after link, after link, I describe the relevancy, and I go over things.
People can disagree, but I’m getting tired of being called illiterate by UW,
And a republican who walks away with his tail between his legs and therefore must be wrong when I give up on a debate,
And called a republican who must be wrong because I’m not walking away and am being thick headed when I don’t,
Then I’m mocked as if I don’t have reading comprehension,
And these buffoons wonder what issues I have with them? They constantly say how I’m the king of insults, yet I don’t make the insults related to the debate.
Meaning: I don’t say you never source quote like all republicans, you must be wrong!
Or with how often you misquote, you must be wrong! (using your past against you, which both Ron and UW do).
All sorts of crap, I always say stay on the topic at hand, and when I do, I insult at the same time pissed off, and my insults are then used against me.
It’s this never ending cycle. I can’t get this idiots to stop.
I’m about to give up again.
Then Ron will say I ran away with my tail between my legs again,
If you are so sick of it, then stop; mischaracterizing my beliefs, putting words in my mouth, inaccurately comprehending what I am writing, changing the meaning of what I say just to maintain your false narrative about me, or, better yet, just go away.
Problem solved.
March 4, 2016 at 5:41 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Bob, have I not warned you to stop debating with these Progressive Socialist punks? They are in full denial that their ideology is the biggest failure in modern history and when you prove them wrong, they just insult and hide comments. Wouldn’t their mother be proud?
March 2, 2016 at 6:56 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
8
6
UW: I do not like Trump and I am not defending him. But your BS is over the top.
First, I think it would be very hard to find 7 far right wing justices, even if the existing set of SCOTUS’s retired or met an untimely demise.
Second, yes, Trump said those things but was referencing Islamic Terrorists, not American Muslims, not that I am condoning that behavior. However, someone (Americans or otherwise) who are supporting or harboring terrorists are traitors and need to be prosecuted as such.
Third, Trump is not a conservative so please stop lumping him in with true conservatives. True conservatives care about the Constitution and the predervation of the American way. Truth,liberty and justice, Unfortunately, these are foreign terms to Obama and the left. They do not know how to be truthful, they continue trample on our liberties and they have selective justice. Obama swore to uphold the laws and Constitution of this country and refuses to enforce the immigration laws and tries to change laws with his pen.
Trump said there is no choice, we have to shut down mosques, and would have “security rule.” Also we would have to do things unthinkable a yearago ago. He’s nuts, and you are either clueless or nuts on this. Funny you support this guy, who also advocated deporting US citizens to Mexico with no due process, and then bitch about Obama and the Constitution, and link to bullshit “evidence.” You are a total clown.
As for the 7 far-right justices you are even more clueless, shockingly. There are already 4. Replace Scalia. Then, Ginsburg is 83 and Breyer is 77.
For the conservatives out there, 4+1+1+1=7. So yeah it could happen pretty easily.
Also, sorry, you are an outright idiot if you think Trump isn’t a conservative. He doesn’t hold every position because basically nobody does, but he’s as close as you can get, and winning by a landslide. What race is that again? Oh yeah, the conservative one, what a coincidence!
Citation needed on that deporting US citizens with no process.
Are you referring to removing people who are here illegally?
Citation needed on how this is anti constitution.
Regarding Trump not being conservative:
Moderates are voting for Trump as well.
And I really have to add this:
As much as you focus on Trump for how he speaks, Hillary is worse in every political policy regard. Every. Single. One. This is negating the lies, the flip flopping on Iraq for popularity (using a war when it suits her, then flipping on it when it suits her). This woman is the government equivalent of Trump which makes her much more dangerous. She runs the government like a business for her and her cronies.
Special tax rates for green energy is cronyism.
Special funding for her friends is cronyism.
We have government funded projects going to non bidding scenarios.
Trump talks about bidding our government items out.
Obama hasn’t done it. Do you think this has to do with inflating costs for his buddies? Why is he afraid of bidding out government projects? I have seen projects that went way over cost that had no bids. Have you looked at government funded projects in your local area? I have! Virtually all have no bids.
While Trump is not conservative (and he is not, he is a moderate) it doesn’t really matter who is voting for Trump anyway.
You can’t label an entire population as being a joke for voting Trump.
You guys voted Obama. Who for a fact is one of the worst presidents we have ever had, and anyone who believes otherwise is a darned fool.
We have Bush W and Obama, and I view them both as equally catastrophic for different reasons.
Bush W for being a moderate so much that he didn’t get things done.
Obama for being a cronyist, a liar, continuing wars in the middle east after condemning it, using the intelligence we got from GITMO which lead to Osama while at the same time saying GITMO had no purpose, refusing to give Bush credit in that for keeping GITMO open, etc etc.
UW: You call me an idiot yet you cannot even interpret that I am not a Trump supporter. I’ve said it several times. I have also said that I am not defending him.
I was referring to having to replace 7 justices if they all somehow passed or moved on, not 3. I misread your post. My mistake.
If you think Trump is a Conservative, then you are an idiot. Just because conservative people are voting for him, it does not make him a conservative. People are voting for him because they are tired of the “politicians” running this country. Unfortunately, they do not realize that he closer to being part of the establishment because of his dealings with them than he will ever be a conservative.
March 3, 2016 at 6:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
9
Another nail on the head for Integrity.
I said it myself, people view Trump as anti establishment.
I think he’s anything but. With the establishment trying so hard now at every corner to overthrow him,
And media going crazy,
It is helping Trump.
I also don’t like Trump, as I said here as a conservative leaning libertarian:
I will only vote for him if I have to (against Hillary).
March 4, 2016 at 1:17 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
Also UW:
I have never seen a republican attacked so much in a primary. The republican party is refusing to accept Trump. So he isn’t conservative.
Trump refused to go a debate on Fox News. He considered they were attacking him. And they were.
He’s such a conservative even Fox News doesn’t like him eh? The whole establishment is trying to kick him out.
For Pete’s sakes. Do you even fact check a single thing you write?
February 29, 2016 at 12:06 pm
BS says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32
12
Every time he opens his mouth, I become more and more positive that this man is trolling the Republican party – hell, the entire country. I really think that this is all an elaborate scheme to see how far the American public will let him go before we finally realize just how crazy we’ve allowed ourselves to become. The problem is, I think we’re already too far gone. For him to get into a pissing match with Pope of all people, and not have it affect his poll numbers at all? Yeah. Our country is in trouble.
I agree, BS. This guy is running as more or less a fascist and is leading the GOP. WOW! I keep thinking he is just pulling an Andy Kauffman. He keeps a straight face, though. Then again, it is the nature of a sphincter to tighten back up after the crap has moved through.
Do you remember at all the battle with the Catholic Church about forced funding of birth control by employers?
We should always honor the pope! (When it’s a republican)
The pope is thinking in the past (When it’s Obama)
Now on to the Pope commentary: The Pope said that if a man were to put up a wall with the intent of going against charity, and to harm people, that man was not a Christian. The pope is NOT your bitch! I have seen the liberal side try to say the pope is on their side for example saying he is moving toward women in the clergy, and is liberal, and said atheists can go to heaven, and in each time, they manipulated his statements.
The liberal media is twisting what the pope is saying.
If. That is the key word. Trump was ticked off at the liberal media more than the pope, but had to point out that the pope DOES NOT know what he’s talking about IF the pope thinks that Trump is not charitable to Mexicans. He talks flamboyantly, this does not mean he “got into a pissing match”
I’m not arguing who was right and who was wrong in the Pope-Trump exchange. What I said was that Trump got into a pissing contest with the Pope – someone that is, if not loved, at least pretty much respected world-wide – and it didn’t hurt his poll numbers at all. That’s kind of a big deal.
The ‘liberal media’ didn’t twist what the Pope said. Here it is verbatim:
“Q: Good evening, Your Holiness. Today you spoke eloquently about the problems of migrants. On the other side of the frontier there’s a very tough electoral campaign going on. One of the Republican candidates for the White House, Donald Trump, in a recent interview, said you are a “political man” and that maybe you are a pawn of the Mexican government as far as immigration policy is concerned. He has said that if elected, he would build a 2,500-kilometer-long wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, thus separating families, etc. I would like to ask you, first off, what do you think of these accusations against you, and if an American Catholic can vote for someone like this.
A: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as “animal politicus.” So at least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”
(http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/transcript-pope-francis-donald-trump-immigration-37038905)
Trump responded with the following statement on his website:
“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.
The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story – he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.
For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.”
First he implied that the Vatican would be hit by ISIS if he’s not elected President, and then he doubled down on his claim that the Pope is a ‘pawn.’ I’m sorry, but regardless of how it started or how it ended, that is kind of a pissing contest. And it didn’t hurt his numbers at all. Any other politician, be it Cruz, Clinton, Rubio or Sanders, would have lost votes over that. But not Trump. And that’s huge.
“A: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as “animal politicus.” So at least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”
(http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/transcript-pope-francis-donald-trump-immigration-37038905)
Trump responded with the following statement on his website:”
Why did you bold the areas you did here? They line up with my summary perfectly.
Also, at risk of pissing you off: He said NOTHING wrong in that second statement, it is not a pissing contest. ISIS would attack the Church if they could. The liberal media is using the pope as a pawn. His comments about this are in no way out of the ordinary for a politician.
This is how people respond when someone attacks them for something that is untrue. They paint the person to be unreasonable.
I see this as no different Obama to Trump. If you find the parts you bolded to be a pissing match you are out of your mind. If anything, he said the pope doesn’t even know who he is. Do you disagree with that?
The pope only knows about Trump based on what he hears. He wants someone who builds bridges, and said if Trump doesn’t, he’s not Christian. Then Trump says I am Christian, he will love it when I defend him in office from Isis, and my competition needs to stop using the pope as a political tool, and you see that as a pissing match.
This is called defending oneself. You simply want the ability to attack Trump and have him say nothing.
Here’s my questions:
Did he start the dialogue, or did he reply?
What should he have said to say the Pope was wrong about him?
Part of the reason that his poll numbers did not go down is because many Christians (Catholic and non-Catholic) do not agree with many of the social positions this Pope has taken. There are several that is contradictory to the bible.
Honestly, I agree with Trump that no man (and the Pope is still a man) has the ability to judge another persons faith. Only God knows a persons heart. People )Christians included) are still human and flawed, which is why we need a Savior in the first place, because we cannot do anything to redeem our own sins.
Obviously, actions can show whether a person demonstrates the faith they are allegedly professing. The Pope does not know the true picture of what is happening with our border.
We can love our neighbor (Mexico) without allowing them to steal it from us.
How much Christian love did Obama show by not going to Scalia’s funeral? That disrespect was surely not Presidential. Does that mean he is not a Christian? I don’t know. He says he is but his actions say otherwise. Only God knows.
integrity matters,
What specifically has the Pope done that isn’t consistent with the teachings of The Bible? I would argue the opposite, that many of the Teahadists take social positions that are contradictory to The Bible and more specifically, Jesus’ teachings. Refusing someone service for whatever reason, for example.
March 3, 2016 at 3:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
7
Planet,
Refusing what services?
I don’t think the bible looks lightly upon your use of “Tehadists”. Mainly do the fact that I’m sure Jesus does not compare conservatives to people who behead his followers.
Also, you’re lying here.
You have called out the Catholic church on birth control, and asserted the Pope was a white man controlling women.
So then, is he consistent there with the teachings of the bible?
Is that what you’re trying to say now?
How about gay marriage?
You are literally trying to use the pope as your b@%@, which I said earlier your side does a lot. Listen to me clearly Planet:
The pope.
Is not.
Your %@#%^@.
Manipulating sack of trash.
March 3, 2016 at 3:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
Wait,
Are you talking about the wedding incident on the refusal of service?
I hope to God you’re not.
Because freedom like that is exactly what the bible supports.
March 3, 2016 at 4:15 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
Planet:
God invented marriage. It was and is between a man and a woman. The bible is very clear on homosexuality (and other lusts of the flesh – the Pope didn’t comment on these that I am aware of.) Sodom and Gemorrah were destryoed by God because of the debauchery that went on in those cities.
Everyone tries to say “what’s wrong with loving someone even if the are the same gender?” The simple answer is that it is not natural and not what God intended, therefore, it is wrong.
No one, on this site or in any conversation I have had, will support pedophilia, “in the name of love”. (Thank God!) But the reason for that is because that is where their moral compass sets. What’s wrong with a 21 year old loving a mature 13 year old? The schools will give the 13 year old a condom because they are nature enough to have sex, but only with those younger than 18. How messed up is that?
So, Planet, are you okay with a 21 year old or a 35 year old, having sex with a 13 year old if they are in love? Should age ever matter as long as they are in love?
March 3, 2016 at 4:17 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Mature enough, not nature.
March 3, 2016 at 5:55 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
“Honestly, I agree with Trump that no man (and the Pope is still a man) has the ability to judge another persons faith. Only God knows a persons heart.”
Oh, I completely agree with you, Integrity Matters. The Pope never should have said what he said. My comment was not intended to imply that I thought the Pope was right. I only meant that in the past, if there had been a similar exchange between him and another politician, it would have been reflected in the polls.
And you’re right. Obama should have gone to Scalia’s funeral. I was shocked and really disappointed when I heard that he wasn’t going. Regardless of political affiliation, when someone that important passes away, the President should be at the funeral. It was very disrespectful not to be.
March 4, 2016 at 2:05 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
integrity matters,
So, if God invented marriage and the Constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, then there should be NO marriages by law, only within one’s Church.
How the law views 2 consenting adults should not change just because of gender(s), period.
March 7, 2016 at 2:27 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Marriage “laws” are made not as guidelines for public to do or not to do, it is for the government to do or not do special treatment and affords benefits, or alternatively less benefits, based on child raising or how much people support each other, etc. These laws as made were specifically made for child raising couples. Porting them to gay couples and calling it the same is not the way to handle marriage. What we should do is pass new laws for the needs of gay people.
Marriage laws were not made so that two people who loved each other could get married.
The government doesn’t establish love. Separation of Church and State.
The government doesn’t establish togetherness. Separation of Church and state.
You are beyond an idiot in this regards.
Equality does not equate to sameness as a side comment.
Men and Women are equal. They are not the same, for example.
Gay marriages and straight marriages are equal (well, actually, fraudulent Catholic, they are not and I hate to sound mean but you will go to hell for debating for gay marriage as you do because you are arguing for it’s acceptance which is why God destroyed Sodom) but they are not equal in need.
If gays have needs, we should pass the needs they need on a case by case basis.
Porting over the marriage methods that were tailored to families is irrational. They need to be weighed separately based on need.
March 8, 2016 at 8:52 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Bob,
What part of, “Separate but equal is unconstitutional” do you not understand? Gays couples also raise children and there are many straight couples that never raise children. There, your ridiculous argument has been debunked. Try another way to impose your religious beliefs upon a secular nation.
If I go to Hell because I believe all of God’s children should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, then so be it. I will see you there.
Who is going to handle the case-by-case reviews? Are you advocating for even more government?
It is people like you and your positions that are dividing the country, not President Obama.
March 3, 2016 at 3:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
8
Bingo, Integrity hit the nail on the head.
BS thinks that the poll numbers must go down if he disagrees with the pope.
However, if people disagree with the pope, it makes sense.
And for you BS:
Did Obama sink to new lows after he fought with the Catholic Church?
I didn’t see a hit in that nearly at all. Some Catholics tried to make a hit happen. And showed outrage. But no hit occurred.
Bob, I may have missed it, but has the Pope ever criticized Obama for forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor (Nuns)to carry Birth Control coverage? Just curious.
Go after the concept of what Trump says, and not how he says it.
For example: In the debate a while ago Trump said he would not support the Iraq war and it was a mistake. Then Jeb started saying he was tired of being attacked, instead of either defending the Iraq war (so people could see his position) or saying it was stupid.
Instead he made it about character and how Trump said things.
Let’s focus on the issues. You are no better than Trump if you can’t get your head out of your ass and focus on the issues.
If Trump needs to be beaten, it needs to be not on comments of “I can’t believe this guy!” because the demographics show that is how he will win. People like that with him, that he is anti establishment.
They need to see examples.
Use them!
Here you have in independent telling you how to make the difference to beat Trump. Do it.
The Pope has no business getting into our politics and is left leaning. By the way, the Vatican walls are about 40 feet high and are designed to keep people out. I suggest he admit at least 10,000 Syrians and put them up in tents in the plaza.
Sorry Bob, I know you are Catholic. I just think your Pope is wrong.
I’m not suggesting the Pope should get involved in our politics, or that he should have said what he did.
All I was saying is the fact that Trump could have an exchange like that with the Pope of all people, and not take a hit in the polls at all, is an anomaly. Any other politician, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green Party, would have seen some sort of drop. The fact that Trump didn’t is stunning.
An exchange where he said the pope was wrong about whether or not he was Christian?
He didn’t start the exchange. Apparently my post with links still aren’t showing up in my reply.
I’ll shorten it:
Trump did not start the conversation. He replied.
His reply does not make it a pissing match.
I don’t care if the pope is right or wrong either.
I don’t view this as him having fought with the pope. Anyone who does, is far too PC in their beliefs to be voting.
If that is your measure, a guy defended himself from the pope and that is a pissing match,
Why not look at when Obama defended himself against Fox News and publicly called them out? I see it as no different.
I realize you do, because of some false facade you’re putting up that you defend the pope (I know for certain you have mocked the Catholic Church when it suits you however, in terms of birth control, the health care law, and the SCOTUS decision regarding those areas) but it’s just a bunch of talk with you for political points. Nothing more.
And again, your reply is why the libertarians (who for a fact all think like I just posted) are running to Trump.
They want anti establishment, and watching you guys freak out like crazy makes them think that is Trump.
What is your problem? Why are you trying so hard to fight with me? Do you actually disagree with me? Or are you just trying to find some way to ‘put me in my place?’
I’m not bashing Trump, the Pope, or anyone else. And I’m not saying Trump is wrong, and the Pope is right, or vice versa. And I’m certainly not ‘defending the Pope.’
I’m saying that if anybody else had had that sort of exchange with the Pope, they would have suffered in the polls. The Pope (especially THIS Pope) is beloved by many, and respected by most of the world. If he had made that sort of comment about ANYONE else – Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, Sanders, or Obama – their poll numbers would have taken a hit. I don’t know how you can argue with that.
“Every time he opens his mouth, I become more and more positive that this man is trolling the Republican party – hell, the entire country. I really think that this is all an elaborate scheme to see how far the American public will let him go before we finally realize just how crazy we’ve allowed ourselves to become. The problem is, I think we’re already too far gone. For him to get into a pissing match with Pope of all people, and not have it affect his poll numbers at all? Yeah. Our country is in trouble.”
What you said here, is a pissing match. My response is a response to you making a ludicrous comment about Trump because the Pope didn’t affect his polls when he defended himself. Or so that is what you’re trying to say now, but your original post (while it contained that) suggested that we were lunatics for allowing Trump to even come close to presidency.
No. There is no lunacy. You don’t get to talk about a potential president of the United States like this.
If you have valid criticisms on his policy, put them forward.
However, talking using the word troll, and taking PC concepts to mean a man is not electable and to attack character isn’t ok BS.
At all.
Take the conversation into reality as opposed to this absurd trolling city, which it is anti Trump people doing.
As I said; If Trump wins it will be because people focused more on his comments and the Pope than his policy, which is a form that is clearly helping him right now.
I don’t want Trump to win. I would only vote for him if I had to.
So when I see you feeding this, and I see people falling into it?
Guess why it pisses me off BS.
March 3, 2016 at 2:56 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Regardless of what it’s called – pissing match, disagreement, spat or whatever – if anyone else had gotten into an exchange like that with the Pope, their numbers would have dropped. The fact that his haven’t is scary.
Yes, I do think our country is in deep trouble because of that. But I don’t think people are lunatics for supporting Trump. I think people are so fed up with the current state of our country and government that they gravitate towards the loudest voice promising to change and fix it. Even if that voice is coming from someone that doesn’t really share their values. That’s not lunacy, that’s desperation. And Donald Trump is taking full advantage of that.
I don’t think Trump really believes anything he says. I think he’s a power-hungry opportunist who will say and do anything he has to to get what he wants. I truly believe that if the situation was reversed and Obama had been a Republican, and the Democrats were as angry as the Republicans are right now, Trump would be claiming extreme liberal beliefs and would be the Democratic front-runner. I’d rather have someone whose policies I may disagree with, but who’s acting in what he/she feels are the best interests of the country, rather than someone that only doing it for the personal power.
March 3, 2016 at 2:57 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
I will give him this, though… Trump keeps touting that he’s bringing so many people to the Republican party, and I have to agree with him there. When the primaries get to IL, I’ll be declaring myself a Republican and casting a vote for one of his opponents. I’m still not a huge fan of their policies, but I don’t want to see the Republican party destroyed. And if he walks into the convention with a majority of delegates, but short of the 1,237 needed to clinch the nomination, I think that could very easily happen. Especially with all the talk of a brokered convention.
March 4, 2016 at 10:01 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Perhaps Trump is the “Teflon Don” now like Obama has been for 8 years. This is all tied to the anger people feel about how things have been run for the last 8 years. Progressives are angry because all they have stood for is an abject failure. The thugs have to go and many will go kicking and screaming all the way.
People are sick and tired of political BS that has been slung for the past 7 years. Obama said anything to get elected, and now others are following. People are tired of politics as usual and want a change. Along comes Donald Trump! And also Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. People were interested in them all and they all got good ratings at first. We are tired of watching the debt climb higher and higher. We are tired of hearing about US children starving while we give free stuff to their parents. We are tired of crooked politicians getting caught with little or no punishment. We are tired of paying high taxes and watching the government grow and grow and spend and spend. It is time for a change, and Mr. Trump brings a change!
I respect your post, but HOW will he change any of this? It’s all talk until then.
The guy’s a businessman and an entertainer, no more. He inherited millions from his daddy and turned it into quite a bit more, at the expense of how many people? Look at his business dealings…he made deals with whoever it took to get his way, regardless of morality. Then he declared bankruptcy numerous times. He’s not Anti-Establishment, he IS the establishment!
Louie, Trump hasn’t been a success all by himself. He surrounds himself with good people. And that is what he will do as President; he will surround himself with good people. And he makes deals! That is what the USA needs. Someone to make deals that will save our country money AND gain us an economical or strategical advantage. Lately, we are paying out more money and getting lousy deals in return. Countries are taking advantage of us and weakening us. Trump will put an end to this.
You sincerely believe that someone who has had to file for bankruptcy TWICE will be able to make deals that will SAVE our country money? I feel that’s similar to saying something like ‘I trust Jared from Subway to be a wonderful Boy Scout Master!’
His company filed for bankruptcy. They were not personal bankruptcies. While your comparison to Jared is funny, it is not valid. Jared committed a felony. Maybe compare it to Hillary putting government secrets on personal email servers or her lies on Benghazi.
March 2, 2016 at 8:10 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
6
5
Mickey Dee,
The fact that it was some of his companies that went bankrupt makes it worse, not better.
March 2, 2016 at 9:37 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
6
4
Rosenblatt,
Trump at least had the wisdom and sense to see those operations were about to crash and burn. He used the LEGAL means to go into a different direction and minimize the damage. I do not know if they were re-organizations or complete shut downs. If they were re-organizations, it gave them a chance to survive with some collateral damage. Obviously, he cannot use the bankruptcy laws for the trillions of unfunded debt that our current and past law makers and presidents have put us in.
Please compare this to the current President and Congress who not only continue to operte insanely (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result) but they double down and want to make things worse. Hillary and Bernie want to create more entitlements with the free college and keeping the illegals here. And that is just the tip of the iceberg!
Please, I beg you, do the math. Pretend you take all the money away from all the rich people that make more than $1MM. It still does not touch the deficit and unfunded liabilities of this government.
Cruz and Rand Paul (and Trump to an extent) are the only real persons that actually want to turn this eventual train wreck around. Rubio is the establishment candidate of the GOP and he will just kick the same can down the road. Trump has business sense to know he needs to change direction, but, I am afraid he will cave in his “deal makings” with the establishment.
Something radically and fundamentally different has to be done to stop the increasing debt.
March 2, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
6
Rosenblatt,
It is actually 4 times, and it was not personal bankruptcy.
Business ventures sometimes go sideways and then you file for chapter 11, restructure, and move on.
Trump is clearly doing well if it has only been 4. Bain Capital had much more failures when Romney would come in and buy a company and take them through bankruptcy in order to try and save the firm. Of course, that was Romney’s cup of tea so he did it often. But the point here is Trump’s failure rate is definitely low if only 4 companies have had to restructure in this manner.
How many do you suppose he funded, started, or bought?
I found a link going over how well he did with 11 in particular. The government’s failure rate in green energy was about 8%. I could just quote the ones that failed like Solyndra, but you don’t like that do you? Are you maybe doing too little diligence in your search?
Do you know what his failure rate is? I’ll tell you what:
You show me the failure rate, and I will literally agree with you if it is bad. Go ahead.
I doubt it is though, or Trump wouldn’t be wealthy.
March 2, 2016 at 2:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
6
Rosenblatt,
And other times, though I implied it, you buy a business and then restructure it through bankruptcy to shed debt and get the company going again.
Capital firms do this often.
I personally want to know the numbers but I cannot find them, as to how many firms Trump has created, funded, etc.
So I’m serious when I’m asking you for a number.
I will look myself as well. Let’s reconnect when either finds it.
I am a tried and true conservative. I’m unapologetic with my positions and will support a Republican to ensure we NEVER have a Democratic majority in Congress or the White House, but this is not funny anymore. Donald Trump is NOT a Republican. He is NOT a conservative. He likes to win. PERIOD. He’s a disgusting liberal in disguise. Hell, he’s not even in disguise anymore. He’s putting ALL of his cards on the table for us to see! I get it, and everyone who supports Cruz, Carly, or Carson gets it. So what is it about him that you and so many ill-informed people don’t get?
I have to ask you point blank and I have to accuse you of being “ill-informed”, because I need you to see the error in your ways. This is important. The only thing I see out of Trump is a dictatorship. That’s what he wants. You really want to give a man like that the ability to do anything by executive action? After the last seven horrid years and what Criminal Obama has done with his pen, you want that power even more expanded by someone like Trump? Think about that. What then happens when executive action and dictatorial management become the norm and a Democrat gets back in office? You really want to give Democrats that type of power? Are you shitting yourself yet?
And the terrible thing about this is, Trump, by all accounts and with everything he is saying to voters, will make the government EVEN LARGER. NOT smaller. Not more efficient. Not more nimble.
Forget the fact that he quoted Mussolini over the weekend and less than 12 hours later refused to denounce the KKK. Forget that stuff. He’s pandering to every facet of the country for a voting scrap for some god awful reason. Let’s focus in on libel laws alone.
Ask yourself: if Bernie or Hillary came out and said exactly the same thing, would you support it? Would your fellow Trump followers support it? NO! So why in the hell is it okay for Trump to advocate something so dangerous and malicious as lowering the libel law standard? He is telling all of you that his first order of business is using his POWER to his advantage to destroy the people that he perceives have done him wrong. Sound familiar? Sound like what Obama and the Democrats want by trying to silence talk radio and conservative pundits?
Not only that, but if Trump somehow got his way and opened up the floodgates for politicians to more egregiously sue individuals in the media, who’s going to pay for that? That’s a serious question. How is THAT a legit use of our tax dollars when you want a smaller national debt?
Everything he advocates is for more POWER, and none of it has anything to do with being a PUBLIC SERVANT.
We don’t need a rockstar in office. That’s not what the presidency or our government is about. We need someone with a passion and drive for instilling his conservative principles and working with constituents to make our nation stronger in defense, safer on our roadways, and carry the rest of the world with a strong dollar and the ability to pay it’s bills. We need a Constitutional scholar who will protect our freedoms and reverse the damage that has been done to bring our country down a path towards bankruptcy and socialism. The only person left that is our hope as a nation in 2016 is Ted Cruz. He’s there to serve US and not to serve himself.
So please. Really think this through. Trump is not any sort of answer. Believe me, I get it. The screaming and the grandstanding and the threats and the fighting is all amazing and well timed. But that’s where it ends. He’s an opportunist who hates to lose and he doesn’t like others to win. And the others I’m talking about right now are the American people. We suffer with him as President, and I don’t want to have to make a choice of voting for him or not voting at all. I do NOT want the democrats to win, because if they win, we and ALL of our future generations lose. Period.
UW Supreme – well said, my friend, well said! I’ll give you a standing ovation for that response.
The only thing to add is the following…
In 2008, the world cheered and gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, because they knew he would be bringing this country down.
In 2016, the establishment republicans and democrats hate Cruz because of his stand FOR the Constitution. They do not like him because they know he will put this country back on a more conservative path (fiscally and otherwise) which means shrinking the government. We need this approach badly.
March 1, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
8
5
Dear UW Supreme, except for that little dig about being a “disgusting liberal in disguise”, well done. I don’t disagree that he is a liberal in disguise — he is just disgusting.
March 2, 2016 at 6:10 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
Supreme, I can see you have quite a bee in your bonnet about Trump. This country has not seen anyone like him in my adult lifetime. However, the country has been in steep decline, particularly with the Obama years. The country needs a serious shaking up to wake it up. The voters have been waking up judging from the primaries to date.
Yes, he is an opportunist who likes to win, no doubt about that and he has mostly won. Keep one thing in mind, will you? The current President ran on “Hope & Change” and the people fell for it. What did we get, but misery for 8 long years. The Progressive Democrats have been worse for this country than ever imagined. They need to exit stage right and I really don’t care whether it is Trump, Cruz or Rubio. We will have a chance to recover as a country again with any of them.
February 29, 2016 at 3:21 pm
Ron says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
12
8
Mickey Dee,
If he is elected, Donald trump will be the president, not the CEO of the United States. He will be very limited in what he can and cannot do.
Does it bother you at all that he has little to no regard for the Constitution?
Mickey, I think I would prefer Carl Icahn to negotiate trade deals over Caroline Kennedy, wouldn’t you? We are in deficit on trade with every country we trade with. Our deficit with China is $365 Billion. Free trade is fair trade. The leaders we have had have done bad deals and it hurts our economy and kills jobs. That would definitely change with Trump or Cruz or Rubio, whichever it ends up being.
Loui, how many people does his companies employ? All them people would be with out jobs if not for him.
Meanwhile, how many jobs have been shipped out of the country on oBamas watch? How many of them did Trump move out?
As far as issues go for me, the Republican Party will surly get OBama Care off the books and put it back in the hands of people who know what they are doing instead of a bunch of Minn Wage script readers. What a screw job he has done on everyone with this joke known as the PPACA.
Loui, my anger with the PPACA has escalated again. With the announcement of Blue Cross came a feeling of betrayal by our govt. First, commis was slashed from 15 to 5%. Now its gonna be zero. That means people will no longer has the services of a professional licensed agent that carriers E & O helping make the important decisions like which network works the best for me? Now, just a Minn wage script reader that dont give a damn. The way this has been handled is a vote against Universal Health Care. The Govt cant keep their own house in order. Now they want to dabble in my personal health? F OBAMA. I hope Fitzgerald is waiting with a subpoena the day he cant hide behind the white house.
I feel victimized by obama and his lies. So, its simple for me. I am voting republican as they seem hell bent on wiping PPACA off the books.
Trump seems to be the only one talking about bringing jobs back. That is what makes him the best candidate. No one else so much has even talked about that that I have seen.
Oh, and he is not a politician.
February 29, 2016 at 6:18 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
8
7
FFA – I respect your opinion but Trump is not the best candidate to get rid of Obamacare and get this country back to being fiscally responsible. Ted Cruz is our best hope for that. Please read (or re-read UW Supremes post above).
Granted, I will vote for Trump if he gets the nomination because he is lesser of three evils compared to Hilliary and Bernie.
February 29, 2016 at 6:31 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
10
3
I havent heard word one out of anybody regarding bringing our jobs back from any one but Trump.
My pecking order is:
1) PPACA off the book.
2) Bring our jobs back.
If Cruz wins the Rep side, he gets my vote. If Trump wins, he gets my vote.
In the primary, I will be voting on the Dem ticket against anyone that is currently in office and against Hillary. They all deserve to lose their jobs and get thrown to the exchanges.
March 1, 2016 at 8:03 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
11
6
FFA,
What is Donald Trump’s plan for bringing jobs back? Deporting all of the illegal immigrants freeing millions of sub-minimum wage jobs for us? How is that sustainable? Or is he going to remove environmental and labor regulations so we can all start wearing face masks on our way to our $2 per hour factory jobs he brought back from China and third world countries?
Presidents do nothing to create, bring back, eliminate or export jobs. That is the private sector, not the government.
March 1, 2016 at 10:19 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
7
7
Ron, He stated somewhere along the line that the Import Tax would be substantially raised. That was early on in this clown show we call the Election Cycle. Its a start in the right direction.
First and foremost important to me is to wipe the PPACA off the book. The govt has no business being in the health insurance business. It was shoved down our throats with lies and deception by a f’n liar.
March 1, 2016 at 12:03 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
11
6
FFA,
First, Congress changes tax laws, including tariffs, not the president.
Second, that would actually reduce jobs because it would lead to reduced economic growth. It may save some jobs in certain industries, but the economy as a whole would suffer. I am sure Donald Trump understands this, but he is betting that those who do not will not take the time to become educated, and will vote for him.
March 1, 2016 at 4:22 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
6
5
>He’s a disgusting liberal in disguise
Ummm, because Fat Tony Salerno doesn’t want him too???
March 2, 2016 at 4:54 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
6
7
FFA, you feel the same way many Americans have been feeling for some time now. Obama has poisoned the well so bad in 8 years. The media keeps spouting off supporting Progressivism and they all ignore the folks. I am afraid they have misjudged the people and the people are coming for them. Trump did say that he would bring the offshore money back which is estimated at several trillion dollars to invest in American again. We don’t need Ford plants in Mexico and he said he would put a heavy tariff on Ford trucks imported back into this country. I do agree with that. Too many jobs have been exported to other countries when we could keep them here with better tax and regulation policy which is non-existent with Democrats. All they know how to do is run off jobs and tax us to death.
February 29, 2016 at 4:37 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
Trump explained his healthcare ‘plan’ to employ a single-payer.
But what was he doing with his hands in Thursday night’s debate when he mentioned easing insurance company licensing restrictions through multi-state licenses by ‘getting rid of lines’ (between states)?
It seemed he was either acting like a child imitating a prop plane or was re-enacting the ‘wax-on, wax-off’ scene from The Karate Kid.
BTW: Dr. Carson’s explanation of his proposed health care plan was eloquent and thoroughly clear. Too bad Wolf Blitkrieg-the-GOP didn’t find a way to get other candidates to attack him so he could get a fair amount of time to speak. :)
Trump surrounds himself with good people that help him be successful. Don’t be surprised when he picks Dr. Ben Carson to head up his new healthcare plan when he becomes President.
March 1, 2016 at 1:29 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
9
6
Trump: “My healthcare plan is, everyone is going to get better. No one will get sick. No one will get injured. It’s going to be great, and we’re gonna make that happen.”
March 1, 2016 at 7:07 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
You forgot to add “it’s gonna be a winner. A yuuuge success!”
March 2, 2016 at 5:01 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
6
6
Mickey, Dr Carson is a good and honorable man and politics is a bit too rough for him. He would be an excellent cabinet appointee and HHS would be a good slot for him since he understands medicine and I believe he could prove to be valuable when the debacle is repealed. I was a bit surprised that Christie is with Trump now, VP selection on the way? Several other candidates/former candidates could fill out the cabinet. The goal now is to unify the party. We cannot give Obama a third term with Hilliary.
March 3, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
7
3
“There are a multitude of vaccines that might not be necessary” has never been uttered by a doctor who actually understood medicine.
February 29, 2016 at 2:39 pm
Agent says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
16
25
Mickey, we are also tired of seeing a media that is so left wing, they just make up their agenda and call it news. As Jack Nickelson said in the movie, “You can’t stand the truth”. They have no idea what the real truth is. There is literally no fact based reporting anymore. The only one close is Fox and they are gradually morphing left just like the lame stream.
The Ministry of Information, headed by the Minister of Information, was a United Kingdom government department created briefly at the end of World War I and again during World War II. It has nothing to do with Russia. But whatever, it’s not like facts ever stopped you from posting your nonsense before.
March 3, 2016 at 10:46 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
13
Confused, someone should force you to read the book 1984 by George Orwell since you surely didn’t do in your Common Core school. It was a requirement for us.
March 3, 2016 at 11:51 am
Confused says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
3
Agent – what the h3ll does your post have to do with Ministry of Information being a UK thing and not a Russian thing like you said? I’ve read 1984 and there’s a Ministry of Love, Peace, Plenty and Truth. There is no Ministry of Information in that book. Simply reading is not good enough — someone should force you to COMPREHEND what you have read.
February 29, 2016 at 3:22 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35
3
“Obama said anything to get elected” Okay, but….
Couldn’t you say that about nearly every politician? Bush said no new taxes and that was a lie. Franklin Roosevelt told Americans in 1940 that “your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars” and that was a lie. Kennedy said he had no plans for military intervention in Cuba yet at the same time he was planning an invasion of Cuba. Lincoln lied about not negotiating with the South to end the war. Clinton lied about not having relations with Lewinski. James Polk lied to Congress in 1846 claiming Mexico had invaded the United States.
I agree Obama has lied too – I’m not arguing that. You’re absolutely right. All I’m saying is let’s not paint Obama as the ONLY politician who has lied. That’s been a pretty common practice over the last 150+ years in our country.
For the record, Planet, that was not a lie. Reagans economic policies are what helped us recover from Carter’s failures and the trickle down economics worked.
His plans propelled us into the more prosperous ’90’s. Of course, that thing called the internet (that Al Gore lied about inventing) helped the situation.
It’s trickled up. It has created the largest wealth gap in the history of the world. Even his own economic advisor admits it is a failure.
March 2, 2016 at 7:39 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
Foer the record, Planet, the democrats have created the biggest gap in the history of the world with their entitlements.
Why should a person work if they can get their sustenance from the government? Those that do not want to work hard want everything handed to them and think it is owed to them.
The average wage went down for the first time in history under Obama’s watch. He has more people getting some kind of government assistance than any other time in history. The democratic run cities like Chicago, baltimore, LA, etc are in the worst shape ever for poverty. The democrats own that! They have been in control for a longer time than the past eight years.
JFK said “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what can you do for your country.” I think he was the last democrat to ever make a statement like that.
March 3, 2016 at 8:43 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
Allow me to repeat, even his (Reagan’s) own economic advisor admits it is a failure. It also turned us from a creditor to a debtor nation and I think everyone can agree that hasn’t been good for us. If not everyone, certainly the Repubs can agree with that. Debt is the largest talking point on the R side. Yet, they continue to add to it every chance they get.
March 4, 2016 at 10:12 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Confused, I see why you call yourself that. Big Brother used the Ministry of Information to tell the masses what he wanted them to hear. Too bad your Common Core education limited your understanding of about anything.
there is a typo in your last reply agent. you meant to write “big brother used the ministry of TRUTH to tell the masses what he wanted to them to hear.” there is no ministry of INFORMATION in orwell’s 1984 no matter how many times you keep incorrectly saying otherwise.
i dare you to find me ONE actual sentence from ‘1984’ where the three words “ministry of information” are used in a row.
Trump hasn’t detailed his plans, so WHAT KIND of change does he propose?
No one knows, really. I have hope, but fear change that isn’t described.
Change ObamaCare into a single-payer system? No thanks.
Build a wall? Good. What, then, to coerce ‘trespassers’ to leave?
Make deals with politicians, many of whom have been repeatedly insulted?
Republicans will have to turn and face the strange … ch-ch-ch-changes.
Where do you think we are headed? We cant sustain this debt. Look whats gong on in Chicago. The Gov is pushing CPS to bankruptcy priming for a state take over. Good by union.
been meaning to reach out to you for a while. You and I don’t always agree with everything, but I’ve always respected your opinions and the way you make them without personal attacks. Just wanted to let you know that I hope everything works out with your wife. I can’t even begin to imagine how tough it must be.
March 1, 2016 at 4:15 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
8
5
Well, Jack, who the hell is gonna tell Trump that the deals are for the USA and not the Trump Organization????
The mess we have gotten into has been the result of Progressive Democrats, Keynsian spending and reach across the aisle RINO’s. Every time they reached across the aisle, we had more Progressive spending and taxation.
Perplexed, none of this campaign crap means anything. Polls, Schmolls. Scot Walker elected three times including the recall election and he still is Gov despite what the (flawed) polls say about him.
None of this crap takes the silent majority into account. I have actually stopped watching the news for the most part. I make sure I catch the weather and the sports.
Perplexed, not as scary as what we have had for 8 very long years. People have had enough of politics as usual. It really doesn’t matter about all these insults politicians throw around. Rubio has acted like a grade school kid after starting out with some solid proposals for the country and economy. I look for all this to settle down by mid summer and unifying the party will be starting. Once the establishment realizes they can’t dictate who the nominee will be, they will come around.
Next up — President Trump buddying up with Putin and claiming eminent domain rights to develop the Casinos and resorts on the Crimean peninsula. Cha-ching…
Hey – If he works with Congress to amend the laws regarding the reduction of taxes for Domestic Income in Foreign Countries brought back to the US, it could help increase overall revenue to the US and lowering the debt. I am all for using Russian money to help our economy.
Integrity, I am glad that I could expand your thinking, faulty though it is. And you say you are not a Trump supporter. Harrmpt! Or should I say Drumpf!
I am all for telling the Shieks to turn their tankers around as well since we no longer need their oil and China’s ships until they negotiate more fair trade agreements and stop manipulating their currency.
BS – if for some reason Trump gets to the White House, it will be interesting to see him humbled about his lack of power to control the Congress. Me thinks he will last maybe 12 months before he resigns due to “other pressing commitments” — so his choice of VP becomes increasingly important. What we have is one guy who wants to build a wall around America and another (Christie) who closes bridges on a whim.
I hate to tell you this Celtica, but we have a Republican House and Senate now. I kind of think a Republican Congress would go along with decent proposals and bills they pass which are good for the country would not face the veto pen like they have for 8 years.
BS, what have we been hearing from Obama for 8 years? It was basically get lost and I won and you lost. Does that sound Presidential to you? He had the wonderful Rahm Emanuel doing his dirty work early on and his nickname was “Dead Fish”. Does that resonate with you? Now, it appears Valerie Jarrett is the mob boss for this President.
I have not heard anybody claim Trump is a uniter, but good point. I do find it funny many Republicans have cried about Obama being such a divider, and how we need a uniter, and the guy who is the overwhelming leader is the nastiest politician to run in modern history, wants to attack Mexicans, Arabs, Muslims, Persians, seemingly the entire Middle East, has no policy proposals, and has gained his lead by dividing his own party. If that last debate is what they think a uniter is, they are more deranged than I thought.
Man, I hear you, UW. Did you watch the $hit Show last night? What a flipping carnival. It’s no wonder you can see Circus Circus from The Trump Hotel, too.
No kidding. And then you literally had a TXmouthbreatherboogereater (blast from the past for those who have been on these forums long enough) Ted Cruz lizarding up a fallen nasal nugget. Kasich is the only sane one in the bunch, and he is the most qualified. Tell me again how this is even a race on that side? And I thought 2012 couldn’t be topped.
March 4, 2016 at 2:23 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Yes, Kasich was polite…. in pushing for BIGGER government. His idea of fixing healthcare is socializing it. How’s that working when it comes to filing Medicare/ Medicaid forms, getting an appointment at the VA, or finding a doctor for a long term relationship? If not for having been Governor of OH, Kasich would have been cast aside a long time ago.
March 4, 2016 at 10:20 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Yogi, I think the litigation lawyers have been quite busy for 8 years. Lawsuits galore on challenging Obamacare from many states, challenging every Executive Order, challenges to the EPA’s regulations, you name it, someone has challenged it.
Yeah; attorney fees are a waste of money on something that looks like it is headed to collapse under its own weight. Better to grab a bag of popcorn, sit back, and watch the slow motion crash & BERN, uh, burn.
Aside from O Care, the lawyers fighting the other stuff are actually indirectly fighting on behalf of The People who elected the Republicans pursuing those suits. EPA regulations alone are job killers and red tape dispensers.
That old Johnny Cash novelty song comes to mind after reading this story.
How do you do?!
The fact that anyone is supporting this uninformed, anti-Constitutional, reality T.V. star is disturbing. I find it ironic that many of the same people who criticize President Obama for his perceived trampling upon the Constitution, are supporting a candidate who is unapologetically campaigning that he will ignore the Constitution to get his way.
I’m still waiting for him to come out and admit this has all been a joke, and he was just trying to see how far he could take it. It’s honestly something Sacha Baron Cohen would do as one of his characters.
Do people TRULY believe that he’s going to build a 50 foot wall between the US and Mexico, and then have Mexico pay for it? Do they really believe he’s going to deport 11 million people? Do they really believe he’s being audited by the IRS because he’s “such a strong Christian”? That he’s going to “Make America Great Again” but won’t reveal a shred of HOW he’s going to do it? I could go on and on and on here, unfortunately.
Plus, now I have to choose between this and HILLARY???
Folks, the joke’s on us…There’s no WAY this is real!
…and I’m sure all the other strong Christians are audited annually, had never seen the inside of a church (until campaign time), and love the comments he’s made about women in many Howard Stern interviews over the years (Google ’em).
“This is a bible my mother gave me. See…she wrote in it. Vote for me.”
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass”
“I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn’t matter, but the look obviously matters, Like you wouldn’t have your job if you weren’t beautiful.”
“My favorite part [of ‘Pulp Fiction’] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up.”
“All of the women on ‘The Apprentice’ flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.”
Regarding Carly Fiorina:
“Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-seriously-20150909?page=13
Regarding Megyn Kelly after she was rough on him in a debate:
“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/11791693/Donald-Trump-says-Megyn-Kellys-tough-questioning-was-due-to-menstruation.html
Regarding Hillary Clinton because she went to the bathroom during a break in one of the debates:
“I know where she went, it’s disgusting, I don’t want to talk about it…No, it’s too disgusting. Don’t say it, it’s disgusting.”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-disgusting/
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”
Not sexist. Not unless you want to make Obama’s lipstick on a pig comment to Palin sexist.
An insult on looks does not become sexism.
““You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever.””
Also not sexist. A woman’s period does affect her hormonal balance.
Ever heard the phrase, boys will be boys? Testosterone causes men to do dumb things. Men even acknowledge it. Does this mean we hate men?
This is an insult, but not sexist.
““I know where she went, it’s disgusting, I don’t want to talk about it…No, it’s too disgusting. Don’t say it, it’s disgusting.””
Again, not sexist. What he is doing here is taunting based on her absence being wrong, but it is not sexist.
It’s not a PC comment, but it isn’t sexist.
Now then, do you have one link, where he says:
Hillary Clinton cannot lead because she is a woman.
Do you have one link where he says:
Women are less capable than men.
Or perhaps: I’m rich because I’m a man. And I’m better than women.
BS, I guess we will have a young and beautiful Piece of …to be the First Lady. How klassy.
Celtica,
Mocking how the public is sexist, is not sexist.
So when he says the reason someone is in a position is because she is beautiful celtica, it is not sexist.
I have specifically heard feminists make this comment.
You are delusional. It’s that simple.
Insults do not equate to sexism. Mocking the public based on voting on attraction (proven that people are more likely to hire a more attractive woman) is talking down to the public, not the women. You have a perfectly fair argument in the following statement:
Trump talks down to the public.
But instead, you say he is a sexist, a racist, xenophobe.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Celtica.
Which means if something can be an insult all it’s own, it should remain one until an ACTUAL sexist comment is made.
Stop being a smug punk and learn to use your head.
Celtica,
I really need to be clear here:
You are not a special snowflake. And don’t tell me it’s sexist saying that. I said the same thing to Ron recently.
You are not naturally more evolved for the sake of it than other people born naturally who you believe are somehow inclined to be sexist. You are not some elite class who knows how the proper way of speech. There is no “proper” way of speech. The very fact that you make these comments makes you the pompous one more than Trump. Your comment was snoody, elitist, and bleeds superiority complex.
You are not superior to Trump.
You are not superior to anyone just about in society.
You are a member. You don’t get to say all the other members of society (specifically the republicans) are racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.
These insults have gone on for far too long and I’m not going to put up with it.
The bigoted remarks are those who believe someone is superior or inferior, based on their race or gender, or in this case, their political affiliation which is far more trivial.
I constantly say to these people “in the 60’s you would have been a racist”. And it’s a true statement.
You are in the habit of labeling groups of people in extreme ways that you cannot prove. Racist. Sexist. Homophobic. Xenophobic. This are the insults the democrats use rather than arguing politics.
You say the republicans do it as well, we don’t label personalities, we talk about demographics and measures of law taken by a party.
If you can’t talk about demographics and measures of law taken by the republicans, that are factually racist, you can’t make the assertion. Is it xenophobic to keep out Muslims when terrorist attacks are a huge risk currently? No. If you believe there is no risk that is a disagreement. It does not mean the word xenophobic should be thrown out.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The reason Trump may win the nomination is that YOUR party is over reacting. This has nothing to do with a republican insult trend. Our party doesn’t throw out those labels I put above. And people are sick of this, and want Trump to over react and throw it right back in their smug elitist faces.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“I’m warning you”…??? How very arrogant.
Bob, try to form a coherent message. If it’s consistent that would be a bonus. You were just bitching about how Romney lost because of attacks unrelated to policy. You were wrong, of course, but it’s inconsistent with this statement. Funny how you also say to address policy in an article about a guy being the overwhelming favorite for a party because he has engaged in almost nothing but personal attacks and attacks on groups. The only “policies” he has hinted at are complete fantasies.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Bob, do you truly believe that you strike fear amog the readers of this site? Believing that you have that ability does, in fact, make you arrogant.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poor wording there:
I am not warning someone with the intent that I will punch them if they don’t do something, or to intimidate them.
The wording there might be confusing.
Listen Aaron, with someone as moderate as me, if that is the best you have, go home.
Trump supporters on the libertarian side are smarter than you. They see through those attacks.
They see through your partisan crap.
And they believe that Trump might not be establishment partisan crap, due to your comments.
And this is why I have warned several people here.
Not in arrogance any more than people speaking out against Trump that are liberals.
They are also warning people. Are they arrogant?
You are clueless.
Aaron, I have to agree with Bob here when it comes to his use of a warning. Although he has made basically the exact same statement in the past as how you interpreted it. Usually it’s when he’s nice enough to be “lenient” with people.
First, I am not a Trump supporter and have the exact same problem with him saying he will do “whatever” in spite of the Constitution.
That said, I find it ironis that many Obama supporters are now “Constitutionalists” and are complaining what Trump might do to the Constitution. You can’t have it both ways, folks. Obama has opened the door with “his phone and pen” and now every Bernie, Donald and Hilliary think they should be able to do the same. Slippery slope; I’ve said it before.
@ Louie: Regarding the 50 foot wall, it could happen and the funding could be via the “de-funding” of the aid to Mexico and several other South American countries. I’m not saying it will happen, but I am saying that it is feasible.
Dear Integrity, “…Regarding the 50 foot wall, it could happen and the funding could be via the “de-funding” of the aid to Mexico and several other South American countries. I’m not saying it will happen, but I am saying that it is feasible. …”
You should share this with Trump as he actually hasn’t shared how he will fund the Wall. Actually he hasn’t shared squat. But it will be huge and he will hire the best people — which appears to be illegal Polish workers that he can pay under the table when he pays them at all and go without proper safety equipment,
Hi Celtica…How have you been? I’ve missed your banter.
Actually, Trump said this a month or two ago and it did not get much media pick up. I barely caught it in a sound bite.
Regarding your statement about illegal Polish workers without safety equipment, I must have missed that news bite. So, are you slamming him because they are illegal?? Polish?? Paid them under the table?? Improper safety equipment?
It can’t possibly be because they are illegal or Polish…that would be discriminatory. I can’t remember if you are in favor of keeping the illegal aliens here because they are “dreamers” and it’s not their fault that they broke the law.
FYI…I am not a Trump supporter so I really don’t care how you bash him. Although, I am in favor of putting up a wall and methodically deporting all the illegals (regardless of their ethnicity) over a period of time. If they are here illegally, the next President should UPHOLD the existing laws and start sending them home.
I know actually following the law is foreign for some (many) of the people in this country, but it is the right thing to do to put us back on track to fiscal responsibility and homeland security.
Hi, Integrity Matters – missed you too! As for that soundbite: “… Regarding your statement about illegal Polish workers without safety equipment, I must have missed that news bite. So, are you slamming him because they are illegal?? Polish?? Paid them under the table?? Improper safety equipment? …”
That was in the last debate not even a week ago. Not really a sound bite…
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-says-controversy-over-his-tower-was-trumped-n397821
I didn’t watch that debate, but thanks for sharing.
Shame on him if he knew. He said “He didn’t do anything wrong” and “he wouldn’t do anything differently”. Sounds a lot like Hilliary!
But, of course, we are supposed to believe Hilliary.
For me, this is just another example that Trump is closer to being part of the establishment than what he is leading on to be.
integrity matters,
At what point have I defended President Obama doing anything unconstitutional?
Sorry, Ron, the comment wasn’t meant specifically for you which is why I said “many Obama supporters”.
integrity matters,
I took it personally because you replied to my post and I am notoriously labeled an Obama supporter on this blog. Yes I voted for him, but I do not think he is perfect, a savior, or anything like that. At the same time, I also do not believe he is as anti-constitutional as many try to portray him. Nobody has proven him to have done anything that is blatantly against the Constitution. If he has, he should be impeached.
Integrity, you are mostly full of it on the Constitution, but I’ll ignore that. Obama has been bad on the Constitution, mainly by codifying and entrenching the policies Bush enacted, it will be a scar on his legacy. You are in a fantasy land regarding paying for the wall, and it’s a perfect example of what a joke conservatives are when it comes to policy. Something like this gets pushed by a right-wing group and then repeated as if it’s an option in reality. The same happens with Ryan’s yearly fraudulent budgets.
The total aid to Mexico yearly would cover less than 1% of the conservative estimates for the cost of the wall ($17.5B). That doesn’t account for maintenance, huge staff increases to monitor it, etc. The entire amount of aid to S America would cover about 3% of the cost to build the wall. It’s a joke to put this forward as a policy, the people who repeat it are jokes, and/or completely uninformed. Although it’s better than the 0% conservatives came up with to fund the Iraq War, so kudos, I guess. Oh wait, the pull paid for that, right?
Much of that aid goes to stuff like HIV treatment, health, etc. Revoking it would be disastrous, and in reality would lead to more immigration to the US, the majority of which is done by driving in, not crossing the border on foot.
Trump is successful with Republicans because he’s their perfect candidate. No interest or knowledge of policy, but full of ignorance, racism, bigotry, misoginism, and a complete disregard for reality.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Integrity, my “diatribe” was an attempt to show that the economics behind the plan are absurd. It would have been easier to say the wall bullshit is aimed at, supported by, and repeated by idiots. If the wall takes 100years to build it’s even more pointless. The overall point is showing how a certain type puts forward outright fantasies and pretends they are economically viable plans that should be taken seriously. Yes it could be done over years, but it wouldn’t make it much more viable.
Trump’s plan actually wouldn’t bring any real economic stimulus to the US (pretending it’s an actual plan for a second) because it would be paid for by Mexico and in reality it would have Mexican workers. But that’s bs, because the plan is bs. Now, if you want stimulus there are thousands of policies we could pursue as stimulus that actually have multipliers associated with them, but republicans won’t allow that unless they are in the White House.
Your article on Obama and the Constitution is absolutely moronic. Aside from the fact that many of these have been ruled constitutional by the supreme court, many are outright retarded, and show an Agent-level of understanding on these topics.
The best probably is the one about the UN security council. Sec. 9 bans a title of nobility, that’s not what this is or was. Also, the UN isn’t a foreign state. They are just idiotic, as is the wall, as are Trump supporters, and as are seemingly every modern conservative in the US. I rarely encounter one who is competent to discuss this stuff on even an elementary level, which explains Trump’s ascendance in this retard shit show.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
UW – Believe what you will. Justice Roberts overstepped is bounds when ruling on Obamacare by interpretting that the healthcare premium could be considered a tax when the democrats and Obama flat out said it wasn’t a tax.
The Supreme Court rulings have been politicized with many of the left wing justices are ruling with their ideology and not based on Constitutional law.
Obama has ushered in a state of lawlessness. He picks and chooses which laws he wants to enforce. That is a dictatorship because he thinks he is above the law.
You want to compare the economics of a plan that is absurd. Look no further than obamacare. How many of you democratic idiots believed the load of crap that Obama was going to provide insurance coverage for at least 15 million uninsured people, many of which would not pay for it, and everyone else is going to get an average reduction in premiums of $2600! And you believed him??!! And you still support him??!!! And you believe Hilliary is going to be any better??!!!
Look in the mirror the next time you use the word incompetent!!
Integrity, you are woefully misinformed. The right wing is using the court to create laws through judicial activism. See Citizens United for example, or when they recently said all people have an individual right to own guns, something the court has been against for all of history, because of the “well-regulated militia” part of the Constitution. There was also the recent example where they appointed a president, said it didn’t set a precedent for the first time in history, and then when questioned on his illogical, inconsistent explanation Scalia said to just deal with it. As far as Roberts, unsurprisingly you’re uninformed. He wrote a historically bad opinion and both said it was and wasn’t a tax.
The only way you can make your claims about Obamacare and the economy is if you ignore the facts. Prices have increased less than projected without Obamacare, meaning it’s better for the economy. Also the health insurance industry was in a death spiral which could not have covered most of the people now covered.
But come on, the wall is a plan that is just patently absurd on every level. Just pushing it shows you are completely incompetent. It’s a fantasy.
Integrity, it appears the Progressive Socialists do not want to hear the truth from you. What else is new?
integrity, the fastest way to taking care of our border problem with Mexico is to stop their trucks at the border and not let them through. They will get the message real fast.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Can someone explain to me what am I missing?
Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed this legal standard, Trump could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress, Leslie said.
As he can’t change the first amendment standard by an executive order or with an act of Congress, how exactly could he change it then?
That was poorly written. It would have to be done by Constitutional Amendment (not a simple Act of Congress via a “regular” law).
Thanks for explaining that – I couldn’t wrap my head around what feasible options exist for Trump to effect that change if he were to be elected President.
Affect! Man, that one always gets me.
I think you had it right the first time with laws taking effect which affect you. Just my take.
Rosenblatt, I can’t believe the chief word parser on this forum would have any trouble with any word.
This is so surprising since Trump is a Constitutional scholar with principles and ethics to match!
Just like Obama. NOT!!
He may have studied and taught about the Constitution, but he definitely is not following it. As far as principles and ethics are concerned, Obama either doesn’t have any or he doesn’t know the true meaning of those terms. Integrity is another attribute that he is sorely lacking.
integrity matters,
What has President Obama specifically done that is not following the Constitution? Be sure to cite your source of the evidence and the a specific portion of the Constitution to which it applies.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
why should he? If integrity says obama is not following the constitution, he should do his due diligence and quote something. This is the exact same logic you used when you told Insurance is fun to “Please quote one. I’m serious. Do your due diligence.” don’t be a hypocrite
Bob,
When people ask me for examples, I provide them with a cited source. Is there a reason why I should not be extended the same courtesy?
While I am personally against all EOs, and some may be unconstitutional, there are allowed.
When did I say either, “You say republicans are inching toward birthing control.” or “You say Obama isn’t inching toward gun control.”? Like you said, “Please quote one. I’m serious. Do your due diligence.”
See how I responded without any insults? Try it some time.
Bob,
When people ask me for examples, I provide them with a cited source. Is there a reason why I should not be extended the same courtesy?
While I am personally against all EOs, and some may be unconstitutional, they’re are allowed.
When did I say either, “You say republicans are inching toward birthing control.” or “You say Obama isn’t inching toward gun control.”? Like you said, “Please quote one. I’m serious. Do your due diligence.”
See how I responded without any insults? Try it some time.
My apologies for the duplicate posts and typos.
Confused,
I am not a hypocrite. Ron has refused the evidence. Integrity has already posted what he believes, and Ron wants to use false equivalency again.
Also, I did just post my evidence, or I referenced it rather. Obama has crossed lines on executive order purpose and scope.
The numerical aspect isn’t the issue. Ron then always says Bush W issued more. Bush W didn’t have lawsuits go through due to his executive order, and have them struck down, like Obama has. This means quite literally that Obama overstepped his bounds. While courts stopped him, he overstepped his bounds.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
bob,
Neither of those links indicate that any of President Obama’s EOs were found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. You know, the only court with authority do make that decision.
Try again.
I apologize if you took the way I was responding to your disrespectful, demeaning and vulgar posts as being superior. It was not my intent. I was trying to respond in a language that you may understand since you were not correctly comprehending the message I was trying to convey.
Do you have any interest in beginning a new era of debate without ANY insults, vulgarity, references to poor reading comprehension, putting words in each other’s mouths, or demeaning words?
Bob,
One other thing, shouldn’t intelligent conversations/debates require people to use the correct terminology and use the proper context? Allowing people to alter the definition of words solely to make their point is unfair debating. Don’t you agree?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ron,
You are manipulating the conversation again.
Should they define communism by a text book definition, and say that if it meets the definition it is bad,
Or should they define what is occurring by calling it forms of communism, or socialism, so that it is separated from typical capitalism, and therefore we can take actions against it?
I’ll throw it back at you. How is what Obama does different than Bush in terms of actions that are socialist?
Do you believe they take different actions in those terms?
Now, do you believe they take different actions and that we must weight those actions to see which is damaging?
Now what is worse in doing that:
Calling them all the same.
Or, while stating it leads to socialism, you make it distinctly different than capitalism, and you make the case against it?
You are crating a path where republicans cannot stop the path to socialism, because the definition of the word not yet meeting what is occurring in the public (from your point of view, and a dictionary, but other dictionaries disagree, and other classes that teach on the matter disagree. If this were a simple issue, when classes were taught on it they would say, GO READ THE DICTIONARY, but they don’t, do they?)
As stated above, here is a link to the list.
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/52988
If Trump wins there could easily be 7 far right-wing justices, with many outright fascists like him, there are no abuses that wouldn’t be inconceivable. He has said he would torture and behead people as well as specifically target innocentpeople family members, and recently said he would have the Justice Department target political opponents. The Constitution is irrelevant under his, and conservatives’ ideal world.
Bob, sorry to interrupt your dressing down of Ron, but allow me to quote Marx. He said – the goal of Socialism is Communism.
You also said the reason for Trump is pissed off Republicans and Libertarians. I would argue that the voting public in general is really mad at most politicians, both RINO and Progressive Democrats. It has reached a zenith of acrimony against them. Trump has been successful because he has tapped into the anger felt by Americans with the current political system. Anything to get rid of the career politicians who have made such a mess. People can’t stand anymore of the Progressive Socialist policies of Obama. If you have been paying attention to how these primaries have been going, you will see the Democrats have very little interest in Hilliary or Bernie. Nevada was a good example – 12,000 votes combined. The Republicans had over 100,000 votes cast. Republicans are energized this year and their numbers dwarf what Hilliary & Bernie get. By the way, Bernie has been correctly labeled a Socialist, but he may be closer to a Communist.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Bob, I think some of the reason Bernie is doing fairly well is the anti-Hilliary vote. People really don’t like her sorry lying, untrustworthy act. By the way, I figure that Trump will govern more moderately than he sounds. He is someone who will not take it and gives back in kind. He has driven the pundits and media types wild because they can’t figure out what he will say or do next. The establishment is just beside themselves and think he will upset their golden applecart. It needs to be. When a man is self funded, he is not beholden to lobbyists or special interests. It is quite interesting to see this play out.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Bob, I was going by the numbers on the screen scrolling all night on Nevada. I thought it a bit odd that Hillary only had in the high 7,000 votes and Bernie in the high 3,000 votes in a Presidential primary. That is more like a local mayoral race than a Presidential Primary. In any case, there is far more interest in the Republican primaries than the Dimwit party. Hilliary and Bernie have nothing to sell except more Socialism, more government control and more free stuff.
Bob seems a little rattled after losing to uw so consistently lately. You looked like an amateur debating a pro on the minimum wage. They presented a long but interesting study on minimum wage that showed the economists mostly confirm what they argued and the ones who did not had little data and less rigorous studies.
Actu –
Don’t act like a fool. Showing 3/4 studies disagreeing with him doesn’t make me lose the argument.
Every study tries to show why every other study is wrong. Only one is correct.
Harvard students and a Bureau official were my sources. If a Bureau official is not included, nor is the majority of studies, I don’t know what is.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995
Can I use the CBO?
They looked at a $10.10 federal minimum wage. This would be a much lesser affect than to $15.
These are easy numbers Actu. I looked like an amateur?
Biden himself said 97% of businesses have $250,000 in revenues or less.
Accounting for leasing these make very low profit margins.
These firms cannot afford to have a hike of $10-$15k per employee per year. It’s just math.
Refute any point I have made. If I am wrong, point out where.
UW has not pointed out where, he has pointed to studies that he believes settles the math.
It certainly doesn’t.
So are you liberals now disregarding the CBO? The same thing I have seen Ron call a crime of the right?
Just to note:
I am rattled by UW’s absurd lunatic commentary here.
He is clueless. And the last few arguments I warned him what would happen if he kept on calling me a dolt due to differences of opinion.
I’m rattled by his general lack of knowledge and elitist behavior. Those two hand in hand are incredibly annoying.
And also:
Look at the debate between Biden and Ryan.
Go watch it. He repeats that 97% line during it, and tries to state that businesses that file in that tax bracket would have a tax increase because as Biden said, Ryan was lying about the ability to decrease the rates by 20%, broaden the base, and to be revenue neutral. He said Ryan would have to get rid of the mortgage credit, which he did for a fact say would raise taxes on the middle class, and by default since he was talking about businesses as well, he meant businesses.
I then went over a $500,000 loan because he is so concerned with mortgage loans and businesses that fall under marginal rates.
This means Biden DID for a fact say that a number far lower than even $10,000 would harm small businesses in the form of a tax increase.
So Biden must not have go the memo on what UW is saying.
That, or he’s just talking out of his rear end to win over the public when it suits him.
If you disagree, explain how I am wrong, instead of saying how rattled up I am.
Debate the topic at hand, and not something that has nothing to do with it.
My character may be fun for you to bash (like the zealot you are) but if you want any credibility at all, start talking numbers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CptqDRfn_-M
I just watched this myself about a week ago.
Compare what Biden says and his logic to my math.
Also I might add Biden says “It has never been done before” to which Ryan points out is has with JFK and Reagan,
To which point he says “Oh now you’re JFK!!” and rolls his eyes. You see there’s a problem there. First he says it has not been done before. Then he admits is has, but only by people that are not Ryan.
Also, I should note that the intent of broadening the base and lowering the rates, is to bring in more revenues dynamically. They said it is impossible statically. Yes. People disagreed it would work. That does not mean that Ryan was lying and would raise taxes on the middle class. It meant Ryan and Romney would put what they said into place, and if it worked, it worked, if it didn’t, chances are they would remove it or their successor would, but I doubt they would instead say: Ok we are getting rid of the mortgage deduction!
Biden should have simply said that. Instead of calling Ryan a liar, about getting rid of something he said he wouldn’t, he should have simply said:
I don’t think it will work.
Ryan would then say: I think it will.
They both make their cases. It ends.
Ok I really have to know:
What in those posts with information have you disliking it Actu or UW?
You’re not even refuting the evidence, couldn’t have possibly watched the video on work hours,
So when you reply you do some sort of a comment calling me a dolt with a disagreeing source,
And when you don’t, you just dislike and hide all my posts.
This is lunacy. I’m tired of it.
I have not disliked a single post. My other posts can be considered unlikable on the basis of character. These ones below are solely links to facts, no insults, etc.
You don’t have the right to dislike it without even considering the information contained therein, which as I said, is an impossibility due to the speed of the dislike.
This is where you find ideological voters, who do not think. If they form a conclusion before review of evidence that they don’t like what they are hearing…
Well, it limits their thought.
Agent, Fake History, PhD.
Actually that was Lenin. Marx however did say that “Democracy is the road to socialism,” and “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”
Now as an expert on Marxist-Lenist thought, please explain why you hate democracy or why you hate peace. Maybe you are finally acknowledging and stating, “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.” Hopefully those poor souls forced to work for you don’t hear this talk.
Maybe you just literally cannot make a single statement that is true. I’ve never seen a person so consistently wrong. It’s amazing.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“And speak of the devil, you just did exactly what I said you would do.”
Interesting that me pointing out that Agent is making an incorrect statement is somehow a negative towards me. It should be noted that the post you corrected Agent on was about an incorrect statement, like every statement he makes, proving my point even more.
I am not defending Marx or Lenin, but giving Agent a hard time, because he’s dull. You are correct being anti-socialist does not make Agent ant9-peace, but he is still anti-peace based on the people and policies he supports.
” Only extremely partisan people engage in this behavior.”
You are an extremely partisan person. You pretend to be an independent but every statement you write makes it difficult to claim that with any credibility.
“I have not disliked a single post from you or Ron. I am proud of that fact.”
I’m not 100% sure what you mean with this. If you mean downvoted, or thumbs-downed I don’t really care one way or the other, but tend to be with you and rarely vote. I know if a comment has 10 votes down more than up it seems to get hidden, and I oftentimes do the up just so it’s not hidden. But I think those are pretty irrelevant anyways, and not really based on fact.
Thank you for showing your true colors Comrade. Here all this time I thought you were just an ill informed young punk with a Common Core education.
Isn’t it funny how the last few months Ron has constantly said how he uses links the most here,
Yet I have not seen any from him in this particular post. Nor the last few times that he said he uses them the most.
He uses sources alright. In ad hominem style which is flabbergasting. What I mean is: He says he uses sources as a character trait, to win when he doesn’t use them.
He then mentions this to me, and in the same insurance journal article that he does, I use over 5 links, while he has used zero.
This has happened now for months where I use link, after link, after link, after link, I describe the relevancy, and I go over things.
People can disagree, but I’m getting tired of being called illiterate by UW,
And a republican who walks away with his tail between his legs and therefore must be wrong when I give up on a debate,
And called a republican who must be wrong because I’m not walking away and am being thick headed when I don’t,
Then I’m mocked as if I don’t have reading comprehension,
And these buffoons wonder what issues I have with them? They constantly say how I’m the king of insults, yet I don’t make the insults related to the debate.
Meaning: I don’t say you never source quote like all republicans, you must be wrong!
Or with how often you misquote, you must be wrong! (using your past against you, which both Ron and UW do).
All sorts of crap, I always say stay on the topic at hand, and when I do, I insult at the same time pissed off, and my insults are then used against me.
It’s this never ending cycle. I can’t get this idiots to stop.
I’m about to give up again.
Then Ron will say I ran away with my tail between my legs again,
And then we start from square #%@%ing one.
I am really sick of it.
bob,
If you are so sick of it, then stop; mischaracterizing my beliefs, putting words in my mouth, inaccurately comprehending what I am writing, changing the meaning of what I say just to maintain your false narrative about me, or, better yet, just go away.
Problem solved.
Bob, have I not warned you to stop debating with these Progressive Socialist punks? They are in full denial that their ideology is the biggest failure in modern history and when you prove them wrong, they just insult and hide comments. Wouldn’t their mother be proud?
UW: I do not like Trump and I am not defending him. But your BS is over the top.
First, I think it would be very hard to find 7 far right wing justices, even if the existing set of SCOTUS’s retired or met an untimely demise.
Second, yes, Trump said those things but was referencing Islamic Terrorists, not American Muslims, not that I am condoning that behavior. However, someone (Americans or otherwise) who are supporting or harboring terrorists are traitors and need to be prosecuted as such.
Third, Trump is not a conservative so please stop lumping him in with true conservatives. True conservatives care about the Constitution and the predervation of the American way. Truth,liberty and justice, Unfortunately, these are foreign terms to Obama and the left. They do not know how to be truthful, they continue trample on our liberties and they have selective justice. Obama swore to uphold the laws and Constitution of this country and refuses to enforce the immigration laws and tries to change laws with his pen.
preservation…sorry for the typo.
Trump said there is no choice, we have to shut down mosques, and would have “security rule.” Also we would have to do things unthinkable a yearago ago. He’s nuts, and you are either clueless or nuts on this. Funny you support this guy, who also advocated deporting US citizens to Mexico with no due process, and then bitch about Obama and the Constitution, and link to bullshit “evidence.” You are a total clown.
As for the 7 far-right justices you are even more clueless, shockingly. There are already 4. Replace Scalia. Then, Ginsburg is 83 and Breyer is 77.
For the conservatives out there, 4+1+1+1=7. So yeah it could happen pretty easily.
Also, sorry, you are an outright idiot if you think Trump isn’t a conservative. He doesn’t hold every position because basically nobody does, but he’s as close as you can get, and winning by a landslide. What race is that again? Oh yeah, the conservative one, what a coincidence!
Citation needed on that deporting US citizens with no process.
Are you referring to removing people who are here illegally?
Citation needed on how this is anti constitution.
Regarding Trump not being conservative:
Moderates are voting for Trump as well.
And I really have to add this:
As much as you focus on Trump for how he speaks, Hillary is worse in every political policy regard. Every. Single. One. This is negating the lies, the flip flopping on Iraq for popularity (using a war when it suits her, then flipping on it when it suits her). This woman is the government equivalent of Trump which makes her much more dangerous. She runs the government like a business for her and her cronies.
Special tax rates for green energy is cronyism.
Special funding for her friends is cronyism.
We have government funded projects going to non bidding scenarios.
Trump talks about bidding our government items out.
Obama hasn’t done it. Do you think this has to do with inflating costs for his buddies? Why is he afraid of bidding out government projects? I have seen projects that went way over cost that had no bids. Have you looked at government funded projects in your local area? I have! Virtually all have no bids.
While Trump is not conservative (and he is not, he is a moderate) it doesn’t really matter who is voting for Trump anyway.
You can’t label an entire population as being a joke for voting Trump.
You guys voted Obama. Who for a fact is one of the worst presidents we have ever had, and anyone who believes otherwise is a darned fool.
We have Bush W and Obama, and I view them both as equally catastrophic for different reasons.
Bush W for being a moderate so much that he didn’t get things done.
Obama for being a cronyist, a liar, continuing wars in the middle east after condemning it, using the intelligence we got from GITMO which lead to Osama while at the same time saying GITMO had no purpose, refusing to give Bush credit in that for keeping GITMO open, etc etc.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Another nail on the head for Integrity.
I said it myself, people view Trump as anti establishment.
I think he’s anything but. With the establishment trying so hard now at every corner to overthrow him,
And media going crazy,
It is helping Trump.
I also don’t like Trump, as I said here as a conservative leaning libertarian:
I will only vote for him if I have to (against Hillary).
Also UW:
I have never seen a republican attacked so much in a primary. The republican party is refusing to accept Trump. So he isn’t conservative.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/999a7f499006448a9068f19130050428/gop-sees-options-stopping-trump-not-good-ones
This is one of many people.
Trump refused to go a debate on Fox News. He considered they were attacking him. And they were.
He’s such a conservative even Fox News doesn’t like him eh? The whole establishment is trying to kick him out.
For Pete’s sakes. Do you even fact check a single thing you write?
Every time he opens his mouth, I become more and more positive that this man is trolling the Republican party – hell, the entire country. I really think that this is all an elaborate scheme to see how far the American public will let him go before we finally realize just how crazy we’ve allowed ourselves to become. The problem is, I think we’re already too far gone. For him to get into a pissing match with Pope of all people, and not have it affect his poll numbers at all? Yeah. Our country is in trouble.
I agree, BS. This guy is running as more or less a fascist and is leading the GOP. WOW! I keep thinking he is just pulling an Andy Kauffman. He keeps a straight face, though. Then again, it is the nature of a sphincter to tighten back up after the crap has moved through.
You guys are delusional!
Do you remember at all the battle with the Catholic Church about forced funding of birth control by employers?
We should always honor the pope! (When it’s a republican)
The pope is thinking in the past (When it’s Obama)
Now on to the Pope commentary: The Pope said that if a man were to put up a wall with the intent of going against charity, and to harm people, that man was not a Christian. The pope is NOT your bitch! I have seen the liberal side try to say the pope is on their side for example saying he is moving toward women in the clergy, and is liberal, and said atheists can go to heaven, and in each time, they manipulated his statements.
The liberal media is twisting what the pope is saying.
If. That is the key word. Trump was ticked off at the liberal media more than the pope, but had to point out that the pope DOES NOT know what he’s talking about IF the pope thinks that Trump is not charitable to Mexicans. He talks flamboyantly, this does not mean he “got into a pissing match”
I’m not arguing who was right and who was wrong in the Pope-Trump exchange. What I said was that Trump got into a pissing contest with the Pope – someone that is, if not loved, at least pretty much respected world-wide – and it didn’t hurt his poll numbers at all. That’s kind of a big deal.
The ‘liberal media’ didn’t twist what the Pope said. Here it is verbatim:
“Q: Good evening, Your Holiness. Today you spoke eloquently about the problems of migrants. On the other side of the frontier there’s a very tough electoral campaign going on. One of the Republican candidates for the White House, Donald Trump, in a recent interview, said you are a “political man” and that maybe you are a pawn of the Mexican government as far as immigration policy is concerned. He has said that if elected, he would build a 2,500-kilometer-long wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, thus separating families, etc. I would like to ask you, first off, what do you think of these accusations against you, and if an American Catholic can vote for someone like this.
A: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as “animal politicus.” So at least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”
(http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/transcript-pope-francis-donald-trump-immigration-37038905)
Trump responded with the following statement on his website:
“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.
The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story – he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.
For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.”
First he implied that the Vatican would be hit by ISIS if he’s not elected President, and then he doubled down on his claim that the Pope is a ‘pawn.’ I’m sorry, but regardless of how it started or how it ended, that is kind of a pissing contest. And it didn’t hurt his numbers at all. Any other politician, be it Cruz, Clinton, Rubio or Sanders, would have lost votes over that. But not Trump. And that’s huge.
“A: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as “animal politicus.” So at least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”
(http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/transcript-pope-francis-donald-trump-immigration-37038905)
Trump responded with the following statement on his website:”
Why did you bold the areas you did here? They line up with my summary perfectly.
Also, at risk of pissing you off: He said NOTHING wrong in that second statement, it is not a pissing contest. ISIS would attack the Church if they could. The liberal media is using the pope as a pawn. His comments about this are in no way out of the ordinary for a politician.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/02/obama-attacks-fox-news-in-northwestern-speech/
This is how people respond when someone attacks them for something that is untrue. They paint the person to be unreasonable.
I see this as no different Obama to Trump. If you find the parts you bolded to be a pissing match you are out of your mind. If anything, he said the pope doesn’t even know who he is. Do you disagree with that?
The pope only knows about Trump based on what he hears. He wants someone who builds bridges, and said if Trump doesn’t, he’s not Christian. Then Trump says I am Christian, he will love it when I defend him in office from Isis, and my competition needs to stop using the pope as a political tool, and you see that as a pissing match.
This is called defending oneself. You simply want the ability to attack Trump and have him say nothing.
Here’s my questions:
Did he start the dialogue, or did he reply?
What should he have said to say the Pope was wrong about him?
BS
Part of the reason that his poll numbers did not go down is because many Christians (Catholic and non-Catholic) do not agree with many of the social positions this Pope has taken. There are several that is contradictory to the bible.
Honestly, I agree with Trump that no man (and the Pope is still a man) has the ability to judge another persons faith. Only God knows a persons heart. People )Christians included) are still human and flawed, which is why we need a Savior in the first place, because we cannot do anything to redeem our own sins.
Obviously, actions can show whether a person demonstrates the faith they are allegedly professing. The Pope does not know the true picture of what is happening with our border.
We can love our neighbor (Mexico) without allowing them to steal it from us.
How much Christian love did Obama show by not going to Scalia’s funeral? That disrespect was surely not Presidential. Does that mean he is not a Christian? I don’t know. He says he is but his actions say otherwise. Only God knows.
integrity matters,
What specifically has the Pope done that isn’t consistent with the teachings of The Bible? I would argue the opposite, that many of the Teahadists take social positions that are contradictory to The Bible and more specifically, Jesus’ teachings. Refusing someone service for whatever reason, for example.
Planet,
Refusing what services?
I don’t think the bible looks lightly upon your use of “Tehadists”. Mainly do the fact that I’m sure Jesus does not compare conservatives to people who behead his followers.
Also, you’re lying here.
You have called out the Catholic church on birth control, and asserted the Pope was a white man controlling women.
So then, is he consistent there with the teachings of the bible?
Is that what you’re trying to say now?
How about gay marriage?
You are literally trying to use the pope as your b@%@, which I said earlier your side does a lot. Listen to me clearly Planet:
The pope.
Is not.
Your %@#%^@.
Manipulating sack of trash.
Wait,
Are you talking about the wedding incident on the refusal of service?
I hope to God you’re not.
Because freedom like that is exactly what the bible supports.
Planet:
God invented marriage. It was and is between a man and a woman. The bible is very clear on homosexuality (and other lusts of the flesh – the Pope didn’t comment on these that I am aware of.) Sodom and Gemorrah were destryoed by God because of the debauchery that went on in those cities.
Everyone tries to say “what’s wrong with loving someone even if the are the same gender?” The simple answer is that it is not natural and not what God intended, therefore, it is wrong.
No one, on this site or in any conversation I have had, will support pedophilia, “in the name of love”. (Thank God!) But the reason for that is because that is where their moral compass sets. What’s wrong with a 21 year old loving a mature 13 year old? The schools will give the 13 year old a condom because they are nature enough to have sex, but only with those younger than 18. How messed up is that?
So, Planet, are you okay with a 21 year old or a 35 year old, having sex with a 13 year old if they are in love? Should age ever matter as long as they are in love?
Mature enough, not nature.
“Honestly, I agree with Trump that no man (and the Pope is still a man) has the ability to judge another persons faith. Only God knows a persons heart.”
Oh, I completely agree with you, Integrity Matters. The Pope never should have said what he said. My comment was not intended to imply that I thought the Pope was right. I only meant that in the past, if there had been a similar exchange between him and another politician, it would have been reflected in the polls.
And you’re right. Obama should have gone to Scalia’s funeral. I was shocked and really disappointed when I heard that he wasn’t going. Regardless of political affiliation, when someone that important passes away, the President should be at the funeral. It was very disrespectful not to be.
integrity matters,
So, if God invented marriage and the Constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, then there should be NO marriages by law, only within one’s Church.
How the law views 2 consenting adults should not change just because of gender(s), period.
Marriage “laws” are made not as guidelines for public to do or not to do, it is for the government to do or not do special treatment and affords benefits, or alternatively less benefits, based on child raising or how much people support each other, etc. These laws as made were specifically made for child raising couples. Porting them to gay couples and calling it the same is not the way to handle marriage. What we should do is pass new laws for the needs of gay people.
Marriage laws were not made so that two people who loved each other could get married.
The government doesn’t establish love. Separation of Church and State.
The government doesn’t establish togetherness. Separation of Church and state.
You are beyond an idiot in this regards.
Equality does not equate to sameness as a side comment.
Men and Women are equal. They are not the same, for example.
Gay marriages and straight marriages are equal (well, actually, fraudulent Catholic, they are not and I hate to sound mean but you will go to hell for debating for gay marriage as you do because you are arguing for it’s acceptance which is why God destroyed Sodom) but they are not equal in need.
If gays have needs, we should pass the needs they need on a case by case basis.
Porting over the marriage methods that were tailored to families is irrational. They need to be weighed separately based on need.
Bob,
What part of, “Separate but equal is unconstitutional” do you not understand? Gays couples also raise children and there are many straight couples that never raise children. There, your ridiculous argument has been debunked. Try another way to impose your religious beliefs upon a secular nation.
If I go to Hell because I believe all of God’s children should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, then so be it. I will see you there.
Who is going to handle the case-by-case reviews? Are you advocating for even more government?
It is people like you and your positions that are dividing the country, not President Obama.
Bingo, Integrity hit the nail on the head.
BS thinks that the poll numbers must go down if he disagrees with the pope.
However, if people disagree with the pope, it makes sense.
And for you BS:
Did Obama sink to new lows after he fought with the Catholic Church?
I didn’t see a hit in that nearly at all. Some Catholics tried to make a hit happen. And showed outrage. But no hit occurred.
Are you worried about that?
Did you comment about that?
I don’t think you did.
Bob, I may have missed it, but has the Pope ever criticized Obama for forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor (Nuns)to carry Birth Control coverage? Just curious.
In other words:
Go after the concept of what Trump says, and not how he says it.
For example: In the debate a while ago Trump said he would not support the Iraq war and it was a mistake. Then Jeb started saying he was tired of being attacked, instead of either defending the Iraq war (so people could see his position) or saying it was stupid.
Instead he made it about character and how Trump said things.
Let’s focus on the issues. You are no better than Trump if you can’t get your head out of your ass and focus on the issues.
And I’m not even saying this to defend Trump BS.
If Trump needs to be beaten, it needs to be not on comments of “I can’t believe this guy!” because the demographics show that is how he will win. People like that with him, that he is anti establishment.
They need to see examples.
Use them!
Here you have in independent telling you how to make the difference to beat Trump. Do it.
The Pope has no business getting into our politics and is left leaning. By the way, the Vatican walls are about 40 feet high and are designed to keep people out. I suggest he admit at least 10,000 Syrians and put them up in tents in the plaza.
Sorry Bob, I know you are Catholic. I just think your Pope is wrong.
I’m not suggesting the Pope should get involved in our politics, or that he should have said what he did.
All I was saying is the fact that Trump could have an exchange like that with the Pope of all people, and not take a hit in the polls at all, is an anomaly. Any other politician, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green Party, would have seen some sort of drop. The fact that Trump didn’t is stunning.
An exchange where he said the pope was wrong about whether or not he was Christian?
He didn’t start the exchange. Apparently my post with links still aren’t showing up in my reply.
I’ll shorten it:
Trump did not start the conversation. He replied.
His reply does not make it a pissing match.
I don’t care if the pope is right or wrong either.
I don’t view this as him having fought with the pope. Anyone who does, is far too PC in their beliefs to be voting.
If that is your measure, a guy defended himself from the pope and that is a pissing match,
Why not look at when Obama defended himself against Fox News and publicly called them out? I see it as no different.
I realize you do, because of some false facade you’re putting up that you defend the pope (I know for certain you have mocked the Catholic Church when it suits you however, in terms of birth control, the health care law, and the SCOTUS decision regarding those areas) but it’s just a bunch of talk with you for political points. Nothing more.
And again, your reply is why the libertarians (who for a fact all think like I just posted) are running to Trump.
They want anti establishment, and watching you guys freak out like crazy makes them think that is Trump.
What is your problem? Why are you trying so hard to fight with me? Do you actually disagree with me? Or are you just trying to find some way to ‘put me in my place?’
I’m not bashing Trump, the Pope, or anyone else. And I’m not saying Trump is wrong, and the Pope is right, or vice versa. And I’m certainly not ‘defending the Pope.’
I’m saying that if anybody else had had that sort of exchange with the Pope, they would have suffered in the polls. The Pope (especially THIS Pope) is beloved by many, and respected by most of the world. If he had made that sort of comment about ANYONE else – Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, Sanders, or Obama – their poll numbers would have taken a hit. I don’t know how you can argue with that.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Regardless of what it’s called – pissing match, disagreement, spat or whatever – if anyone else had gotten into an exchange like that with the Pope, their numbers would have dropped. The fact that his haven’t is scary.
Yes, I do think our country is in deep trouble because of that. But I don’t think people are lunatics for supporting Trump. I think people are so fed up with the current state of our country and government that they gravitate towards the loudest voice promising to change and fix it. Even if that voice is coming from someone that doesn’t really share their values. That’s not lunacy, that’s desperation. And Donald Trump is taking full advantage of that.
I don’t think Trump really believes anything he says. I think he’s a power-hungry opportunist who will say and do anything he has to to get what he wants. I truly believe that if the situation was reversed and Obama had been a Republican, and the Democrats were as angry as the Republicans are right now, Trump would be claiming extreme liberal beliefs and would be the Democratic front-runner. I’d rather have someone whose policies I may disagree with, but who’s acting in what he/she feels are the best interests of the country, rather than someone that only doing it for the personal power.
I will give him this, though… Trump keeps touting that he’s bringing so many people to the Republican party, and I have to agree with him there. When the primaries get to IL, I’ll be declaring myself a Republican and casting a vote for one of his opponents. I’m still not a huge fan of their policies, but I don’t want to see the Republican party destroyed. And if he walks into the convention with a majority of delegates, but short of the 1,237 needed to clinch the nomination, I think that could very easily happen. Especially with all the talk of a brokered convention.
Perhaps Trump is the “Teflon Don” now like Obama has been for 8 years. This is all tied to the anger people feel about how things have been run for the last 8 years. Progressives are angry because all they have stood for is an abject failure. The thugs have to go and many will go kicking and screaming all the way.
So, the truth comes out. He’s really doing all of this just to get his “good” name back and to get even richer.
People are sick and tired of political BS that has been slung for the past 7 years. Obama said anything to get elected, and now others are following. People are tired of politics as usual and want a change. Along comes Donald Trump! And also Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. People were interested in them all and they all got good ratings at first. We are tired of watching the debt climb higher and higher. We are tired of hearing about US children starving while we give free stuff to their parents. We are tired of crooked politicians getting caught with little or no punishment. We are tired of paying high taxes and watching the government grow and grow and spend and spend. It is time for a change, and Mr. Trump brings a change!
I respect your post, but HOW will he change any of this? It’s all talk until then.
The guy’s a businessman and an entertainer, no more. He inherited millions from his daddy and turned it into quite a bit more, at the expense of how many people? Look at his business dealings…he made deals with whoever it took to get his way, regardless of morality. Then he declared bankruptcy numerous times. He’s not Anti-Establishment, he IS the establishment!
Louie, Trump hasn’t been a success all by himself. He surrounds himself with good people. And that is what he will do as President; he will surround himself with good people. And he makes deals! That is what the USA needs. Someone to make deals that will save our country money AND gain us an economical or strategical advantage. Lately, we are paying out more money and getting lousy deals in return. Countries are taking advantage of us and weakening us. Trump will put an end to this.
You sincerely believe that someone who has had to file for bankruptcy TWICE will be able to make deals that will SAVE our country money? I feel that’s similar to saying something like ‘I trust Jared from Subway to be a wonderful Boy Scout Master!’
His company filed for bankruptcy. They were not personal bankruptcies. While your comparison to Jared is funny, it is not valid. Jared committed a felony. Maybe compare it to Hillary putting government secrets on personal email servers or her lies on Benghazi.
Mickey Dee,
The fact that it was some of his companies that went bankrupt makes it worse, not better.
Rosenblatt,
Trump at least had the wisdom and sense to see those operations were about to crash and burn. He used the LEGAL means to go into a different direction and minimize the damage. I do not know if they were re-organizations or complete shut downs. If they were re-organizations, it gave them a chance to survive with some collateral damage. Obviously, he cannot use the bankruptcy laws for the trillions of unfunded debt that our current and past law makers and presidents have put us in.
Please compare this to the current President and Congress who not only continue to operte insanely (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result) but they double down and want to make things worse. Hillary and Bernie want to create more entitlements with the free college and keeping the illegals here. And that is just the tip of the iceberg!
Please, I beg you, do the math. Pretend you take all the money away from all the rich people that make more than $1MM. It still does not touch the deficit and unfunded liabilities of this government.
Cruz and Rand Paul (and Trump to an extent) are the only real persons that actually want to turn this eventual train wreck around. Rubio is the establishment candidate of the GOP and he will just kick the same can down the road. Trump has business sense to know he needs to change direction, but, I am afraid he will cave in his “deal makings” with the establishment.
Something radically and fundamentally different has to be done to stop the increasing debt.
Rosenblatt,
It is actually 4 times, and it was not personal bankruptcy.
Business ventures sometimes go sideways and then you file for chapter 11, restructure, and move on.
Trump is clearly doing well if it has only been 4. Bain Capital had much more failures when Romney would come in and buy a company and take them through bankruptcy in order to try and save the firm. Of course, that was Romney’s cup of tea so he did it often. But the point here is Trump’s failure rate is definitely low if only 4 companies have had to restructure in this manner.
How many do you suppose he funded, started, or bought?
I found a link going over how well he did with 11 in particular. The government’s failure rate in green energy was about 8%. I could just quote the ones that failed like Solyndra, but you don’t like that do you? Are you maybe doing too little diligence in your search?
Do you know what his failure rate is? I’ll tell you what:
You show me the failure rate, and I will literally agree with you if it is bad. Go ahead.
I doubt it is though, or Trump wouldn’t be wealthy.
Rosenblatt,
And other times, though I implied it, you buy a business and then restructure it through bankruptcy to shed debt and get the company going again.
Capital firms do this often.
I personally want to know the numbers but I cannot find them, as to how many firms Trump has created, funded, etc.
So I’m serious when I’m asking you for a number.
I will look myself as well. Let’s reconnect when either finds it.
Mickey Dee: Please, please, please stop. Please. Just please. Please stop.
I am a tried and true conservative. I’m unapologetic with my positions and will support a Republican to ensure we NEVER have a Democratic majority in Congress or the White House, but this is not funny anymore. Donald Trump is NOT a Republican. He is NOT a conservative. He likes to win. PERIOD. He’s a disgusting liberal in disguise. Hell, he’s not even in disguise anymore. He’s putting ALL of his cards on the table for us to see! I get it, and everyone who supports Cruz, Carly, or Carson gets it. So what is it about him that you and so many ill-informed people don’t get?
I have to ask you point blank and I have to accuse you of being “ill-informed”, because I need you to see the error in your ways. This is important. The only thing I see out of Trump is a dictatorship. That’s what he wants. You really want to give a man like that the ability to do anything by executive action? After the last seven horrid years and what Criminal Obama has done with his pen, you want that power even more expanded by someone like Trump? Think about that. What then happens when executive action and dictatorial management become the norm and a Democrat gets back in office? You really want to give Democrats that type of power? Are you shitting yourself yet?
And the terrible thing about this is, Trump, by all accounts and with everything he is saying to voters, will make the government EVEN LARGER. NOT smaller. Not more efficient. Not more nimble.
Forget the fact that he quoted Mussolini over the weekend and less than 12 hours later refused to denounce the KKK. Forget that stuff. He’s pandering to every facet of the country for a voting scrap for some god awful reason. Let’s focus in on libel laws alone.
Ask yourself: if Bernie or Hillary came out and said exactly the same thing, would you support it? Would your fellow Trump followers support it? NO! So why in the hell is it okay for Trump to advocate something so dangerous and malicious as lowering the libel law standard? He is telling all of you that his first order of business is using his POWER to his advantage to destroy the people that he perceives have done him wrong. Sound familiar? Sound like what Obama and the Democrats want by trying to silence talk radio and conservative pundits?
Not only that, but if Trump somehow got his way and opened up the floodgates for politicians to more egregiously sue individuals in the media, who’s going to pay for that? That’s a serious question. How is THAT a legit use of our tax dollars when you want a smaller national debt?
Everything he advocates is for more POWER, and none of it has anything to do with being a PUBLIC SERVANT.
We don’t need a rockstar in office. That’s not what the presidency or our government is about. We need someone with a passion and drive for instilling his conservative principles and working with constituents to make our nation stronger in defense, safer on our roadways, and carry the rest of the world with a strong dollar and the ability to pay it’s bills. We need a Constitutional scholar who will protect our freedoms and reverse the damage that has been done to bring our country down a path towards bankruptcy and socialism. The only person left that is our hope as a nation in 2016 is Ted Cruz. He’s there to serve US and not to serve himself.
So please. Really think this through. Trump is not any sort of answer. Believe me, I get it. The screaming and the grandstanding and the threats and the fighting is all amazing and well timed. But that’s where it ends. He’s an opportunist who hates to lose and he doesn’t like others to win. And the others I’m talking about right now are the American people. We suffer with him as President, and I don’t want to have to make a choice of voting for him or not voting at all. I do NOT want the democrats to win, because if they win, we and ALL of our future generations lose. Period.
UW Supreme – well said, my friend, well said! I’ll give you a standing ovation for that response.
The only thing to add is the following…
In 2008, the world cheered and gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, because they knew he would be bringing this country down.
In 2016, the establishment republicans and democrats hate Cruz because of his stand FOR the Constitution. They do not like him because they know he will put this country back on a more conservative path (fiscally and otherwise) which means shrinking the government. We need this approach badly.
Dear UW Supreme, except for that little dig about being a “disgusting liberal in disguise”, well done. I don’t disagree that he is a liberal in disguise — he is just disgusting.
Supreme, I can see you have quite a bee in your bonnet about Trump. This country has not seen anyone like him in my adult lifetime. However, the country has been in steep decline, particularly with the Obama years. The country needs a serious shaking up to wake it up. The voters have been waking up judging from the primaries to date.
Yes, he is an opportunist who likes to win, no doubt about that and he has mostly won. Keep one thing in mind, will you? The current President ran on “Hope & Change” and the people fell for it. What did we get, but misery for 8 long years. The Progressive Democrats have been worse for this country than ever imagined. They need to exit stage right and I really don’t care whether it is Trump, Cruz or Rubio. We will have a chance to recover as a country again with any of them.
Mickey Dee,
If he is elected, Donald trump will be the president, not the CEO of the United States. He will be very limited in what he can and cannot do.
Does it bother you at all that he has little to no regard for the Constitution?
Wow!?! The parents got free stuff while their kids starved? That is just not right…
Mickey, I think I would prefer Carl Icahn to negotiate trade deals over Caroline Kennedy, wouldn’t you? We are in deficit on trade with every country we trade with. Our deficit with China is $365 Billion. Free trade is fair trade. The leaders we have had have done bad deals and it hurts our economy and kills jobs. That would definitely change with Trump or Cruz or Rubio, whichever it ends up being.
Loui, how many people does his companies employ? All them people would be with out jobs if not for him.
Meanwhile, how many jobs have been shipped out of the country on oBamas watch? How many of them did Trump move out?
As far as issues go for me, the Republican Party will surly get OBama Care off the books and put it back in the hands of people who know what they are doing instead of a bunch of Minn Wage script readers. What a screw job he has done on everyone with this joke known as the PPACA.
So by that argument, basically any CEO would make a good president because their companies employ people? Sorry, i’m not buying it.
How many people LOST their jobs because of him, especially when he declared bankruptcy?
Furthermore, WHY won’t he release his tax records if he has nothing to hide?
Loui, my anger with the PPACA has escalated again. With the announcement of Blue Cross came a feeling of betrayal by our govt. First, commis was slashed from 15 to 5%. Now its gonna be zero. That means people will no longer has the services of a professional licensed agent that carriers E & O helping make the important decisions like which network works the best for me? Now, just a Minn wage script reader that dont give a damn. The way this has been handled is a vote against Universal Health Care. The Govt cant keep their own house in order. Now they want to dabble in my personal health? F OBAMA. I hope Fitzgerald is waiting with a subpoena the day he cant hide behind the white house.
I feel victimized by obama and his lies. So, its simple for me. I am voting republican as they seem hell bent on wiping PPACA off the books.
Trump seems to be the only one talking about bringing jobs back. That is what makes him the best candidate. No one else so much has even talked about that that I have seen.
Oh, and he is not a politician.
FFA – I respect your opinion but Trump is not the best candidate to get rid of Obamacare and get this country back to being fiscally responsible. Ted Cruz is our best hope for that. Please read (or re-read UW Supremes post above).
Granted, I will vote for Trump if he gets the nomination because he is lesser of three evils compared to Hilliary and Bernie.
I havent heard word one out of anybody regarding bringing our jobs back from any one but Trump.
My pecking order is:
1) PPACA off the book.
2) Bring our jobs back.
If Cruz wins the Rep side, he gets my vote. If Trump wins, he gets my vote.
In the primary, I will be voting on the Dem ticket against anyone that is currently in office and against Hillary. They all deserve to lose their jobs and get thrown to the exchanges.
FFA,
What is Donald Trump’s plan for bringing jobs back? Deporting all of the illegal immigrants freeing millions of sub-minimum wage jobs for us? How is that sustainable? Or is he going to remove environmental and labor regulations so we can all start wearing face masks on our way to our $2 per hour factory jobs he brought back from China and third world countries?
Presidents do nothing to create, bring back, eliminate or export jobs. That is the private sector, not the government.
Ron, He stated somewhere along the line that the Import Tax would be substantially raised. That was early on in this clown show we call the Election Cycle. Its a start in the right direction.
First and foremost important to me is to wipe the PPACA off the book. The govt has no business being in the health insurance business. It was shoved down our throats with lies and deception by a f’n liar.
FFA,
First, Congress changes tax laws, including tariffs, not the president.
Second, that would actually reduce jobs because it would lead to reduced economic growth. It may save some jobs in certain industries, but the economy as a whole would suffer. I am sure Donald Trump understands this, but he is betting that those who do not will not take the time to become educated, and will vote for him.
>He’s a disgusting liberal in disguise
Ummm, because Fat Tony Salerno doesn’t want him too???
FFA, you feel the same way many Americans have been feeling for some time now. Obama has poisoned the well so bad in 8 years. The media keeps spouting off supporting Progressivism and they all ignore the folks. I am afraid they have misjudged the people and the people are coming for them. Trump did say that he would bring the offshore money back which is estimated at several trillion dollars to invest in American again. We don’t need Ford plants in Mexico and he said he would put a heavy tariff on Ford trucks imported back into this country. I do agree with that. Too many jobs have been exported to other countries when we could keep them here with better tax and regulation policy which is non-existent with Democrats. All they know how to do is run off jobs and tax us to death.
Trump explained his healthcare ‘plan’ to employ a single-payer.
But what was he doing with his hands in Thursday night’s debate when he mentioned easing insurance company licensing restrictions through multi-state licenses by ‘getting rid of lines’ (between states)?
It seemed he was either acting like a child imitating a prop plane or was re-enacting the ‘wax-on, wax-off’ scene from The Karate Kid.
BTW: Dr. Carson’s explanation of his proposed health care plan was eloquent and thoroughly clear. Too bad Wolf Blitkrieg-the-GOP didn’t find a way to get other candidates to attack him so he could get a fair amount of time to speak. :)
Trump surrounds himself with good people that help him be successful. Don’t be surprised when he picks Dr. Ben Carson to head up his new healthcare plan when he becomes President.
Trump: “My healthcare plan is, everyone is going to get better. No one will get sick. No one will get injured. It’s going to be great, and we’re gonna make that happen.”
You forgot to add “it’s gonna be a winner. A yuuuge success!”
Mickey, Dr Carson is a good and honorable man and politics is a bit too rough for him. He would be an excellent cabinet appointee and HHS would be a good slot for him since he understands medicine and I believe he could prove to be valuable when the debacle is repealed. I was a bit surprised that Christie is with Trump now, VP selection on the way? Several other candidates/former candidates could fill out the cabinet. The goal now is to unify the party. We cannot give Obama a third term with Hilliary.
“There are a multitude of vaccines that might not be necessary” has never been uttered by a doctor who actually understood medicine.
Mickey, we are also tired of seeing a media that is so left wing, they just make up their agenda and call it news. As Jack Nickelson said in the movie, “You can’t stand the truth”. They have no idea what the real truth is. There is literally no fact based reporting anymore. The only one close is Fox and they are gradually morphing left just like the lame stream.
Agent, David Duke called…he’d like to endorse you for VP.
joe, Putin called and wanted you for his Ministry of Information.
The Ministry of Information, headed by the Minister of Information, was a United Kingdom government department created briefly at the end of World War I and again during World War II. It has nothing to do with Russia. But whatever, it’s not like facts ever stopped you from posting your nonsense before.
Confused, someone should force you to read the book 1984 by George Orwell since you surely didn’t do in your Common Core school. It was a requirement for us.
Agent – what the h3ll does your post have to do with Ministry of Information being a UK thing and not a Russian thing like you said? I’ve read 1984 and there’s a Ministry of Love, Peace, Plenty and Truth. There is no Ministry of Information in that book. Simply reading is not good enough — someone should force you to COMPREHEND what you have read.
“Obama said anything to get elected” Okay, but….
Couldn’t you say that about nearly every politician? Bush said no new taxes and that was a lie. Franklin Roosevelt told Americans in 1940 that “your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars” and that was a lie. Kennedy said he had no plans for military intervention in Cuba yet at the same time he was planning an invasion of Cuba. Lincoln lied about not negotiating with the South to end the war. Clinton lied about not having relations with Lewinski. James Polk lied to Congress in 1846 claiming Mexico had invaded the United States.
I agree Obama has lied too – I’m not arguing that. You’re absolutely right. All I’m saying is let’s not paint Obama as the ONLY politician who has lied. That’s been a pretty common practice over the last 150+ years in our country.
Don’t forget, Reagan said “trickle down” and that was a lie.
For the record, Planet, that was not a lie. Reagans economic policies are what helped us recover from Carter’s failures and the trickle down economics worked.
His plans propelled us into the more prosperous ’90’s. Of course, that thing called the internet (that Al Gore lied about inventing) helped the situation.
It’s trickled up. It has created the largest wealth gap in the history of the world. Even his own economic advisor admits it is a failure.
Foer the record, Planet, the democrats have created the biggest gap in the history of the world with their entitlements.
Why should a person work if they can get their sustenance from the government? Those that do not want to work hard want everything handed to them and think it is owed to them.
The average wage went down for the first time in history under Obama’s watch. He has more people getting some kind of government assistance than any other time in history. The democratic run cities like Chicago, baltimore, LA, etc are in the worst shape ever for poverty. The democrats own that! They have been in control for a longer time than the past eight years.
JFK said “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what can you do for your country.” I think he was the last democrat to ever make a statement like that.
Allow me to repeat, even his (Reagan’s) own economic advisor admits it is a failure. It also turned us from a creditor to a debtor nation and I think everyone can agree that hasn’t been good for us. If not everyone, certainly the Repubs can agree with that. Debt is the largest talking point on the R side. Yet, they continue to add to it every chance they get.
Confused, I see why you call yourself that. Big Brother used the Ministry of Information to tell the masses what he wanted them to hear. Too bad your Common Core education limited your understanding of about anything.
there is a typo in your last reply agent. you meant to write “big brother used the ministry of TRUTH to tell the masses what he wanted to them to hear.” there is no ministry of INFORMATION in orwell’s 1984 no matter how many times you keep incorrectly saying otherwise.
i dare you to find me ONE actual sentence from ‘1984’ where the three words “ministry of information” are used in a row.
The hopey-changey thing hasn’t worked for Obama.
Trump hasn’t detailed his plans, so WHAT KIND of change does he propose?
No one knows, really. I have hope, but fear change that isn’t described.
Change ObamaCare into a single-payer system? No thanks.
Build a wall? Good. What, then, to coerce ‘trespassers’ to leave?
Make deals with politicians, many of whom have been repeatedly insulted?
Republicans will have to turn and face the strange … ch-ch-ch-changes.
If not, there’ll be hell toupee!
Cute Yogi. I thing the country has been paying for 8 long years, don’t you think?
Making deals is what has gotten us in this mess in the first place. We need someone who actually has principles they will stand behind.
We need someone to make GOOD DEALS for the USA. Trump is the man to do that.
Not sure if a ‘dealer’ who often ends in bankruptcy is good for the USA.
Where do you think we are headed? We cant sustain this debt. Look whats gong on in Chicago. The Gov is pushing CPS to bankruptcy priming for a state take over. Good by union.
Hey, FFA–
been meaning to reach out to you for a while. You and I don’t always agree with everything, but I’ve always respected your opinions and the way you make them without personal attacks. Just wanted to let you know that I hope everything works out with your wife. I can’t even begin to imagine how tough it must be.
Well, Jack, who the hell is gonna tell Trump that the deals are for the USA and not the Trump Organization????
How about the Clinton Foundation? I think they have been making a lot of deals behind the scenes for some time now.
The mess we have gotten into has been the result of Progressive Democrats, Keynsian spending and reach across the aisle RINO’s. Every time they reached across the aisle, we had more Progressive spending and taxation.
Trump is scary. It’s as hard to watch people rally behind him as it was to watch people vote for Obama. What’s wrong with people?
Perplexed, none of this campaign crap means anything. Polls, Schmolls. Scot Walker elected three times including the recall election and he still is Gov despite what the (flawed) polls say about him.
None of this crap takes the silent majority into account. I have actually stopped watching the news for the most part. I make sure I catch the weather and the sports.
Perplexed, not as scary as what we have had for 8 very long years. People have had enough of politics as usual. It really doesn’t matter about all these insults politicians throw around. Rubio has acted like a grade school kid after starting out with some solid proposals for the country and economy. I look for all this to settle down by mid summer and unifying the party will be starting. Once the establishment realizes they can’t dictate who the nominee will be, they will come around.
Next up — President Trump buddying up with Putin and claiming eminent domain rights to develop the Casinos and resorts on the Crimean peninsula. Cha-ching…
Hey – If he works with Congress to amend the laws regarding the reduction of taxes for Domestic Income in Foreign Countries brought back to the US, it could help increase overall revenue to the US and lowering the debt. I am all for using Russian money to help our economy.
Good idea, Celtica!
Integrity, I am glad that I could expand your thinking, faulty though it is. And you say you are not a Trump supporter. Harrmpt! Or should I say Drumpf!
I am not a Trump supporter because he is too close to the establishment and I think he will also try to trample the Constitution.
He does have some good ideas, though.
I am all for telling the Shieks to turn their tankers around as well since we no longer need their oil and China’s ships until they negotiate more fair trade agreements and stop manipulating their currency.
I think we got a preview of how a Trump presidency will be during his press conference last night:
“Paul Ryan, I don’t know him well, but I’m sure I’m gonna get along great with him. And if I don’t, he’s gonna have to pay a big price, OK?”
A big price? Like what? Breaking his kneecaps? A horse head in his bed?
He actually threatened the Speaker of the House on national TV! Those are the words of a mob boss, not a Commander in Chief!
BS – if for some reason Trump gets to the White House, it will be interesting to see him humbled about his lack of power to control the Congress. Me thinks he will last maybe 12 months before he resigns due to “other pressing commitments” — so his choice of VP becomes increasingly important. What we have is one guy who wants to build a wall around America and another (Christie) who closes bridges on a whim.
I hate to tell you this Celtica, but we have a Republican House and Senate now. I kind of think a Republican Congress would go along with decent proposals and bills they pass which are good for the country would not face the veto pen like they have for 8 years.
BS, what have we been hearing from Obama for 8 years? It was basically get lost and I won and you lost. Does that sound Presidential to you? He had the wonderful Rahm Emanuel doing his dirty work early on and his nickname was “Dead Fish”. Does that resonate with you? Now, it appears Valerie Jarrett is the mob boss for this President.
If anyone claims that Trump is a uniter, and not a polarizing guy, show them this thread.
One thing I can be certain of Trump doing if he is elected President is creating jobs for litigation lawyers.
Last one to post in this thread wins their argument, whatever it has morphed into at this point.
I have not heard anybody claim Trump is a uniter, but good point. I do find it funny many Republicans have cried about Obama being such a divider, and how we need a uniter, and the guy who is the overwhelming leader is the nastiest politician to run in modern history, wants to attack Mexicans, Arabs, Muslims, Persians, seemingly the entire Middle East, has no policy proposals, and has gained his lead by dividing his own party. If that last debate is what they think a uniter is, they are more deranged than I thought.
Man, I hear you, UW. Did you watch the $hit Show last night? What a flipping carnival. It’s no wonder you can see Circus Circus from The Trump Hotel, too.
The first question of a Presidential debate lead to the front runner defending the size of his d1ck.
Our founding fathers must have been spinning in their graves.
No kidding. And then you literally had a TXmouthbreatherboogereater (blast from the past for those who have been on these forums long enough) Ted Cruz lizarding up a fallen nasal nugget. Kasich is the only sane one in the bunch, and he is the most qualified. Tell me again how this is even a race on that side? And I thought 2012 couldn’t be topped.
Yes, Kasich was polite…. in pushing for BIGGER government. His idea of fixing healthcare is socializing it. How’s that working when it comes to filing Medicare/ Medicaid forms, getting an appointment at the VA, or finding a doctor for a long term relationship? If not for having been Governor of OH, Kasich would have been cast aside a long time ago.
Yogi, I think the litigation lawyers have been quite busy for 8 years. Lawsuits galore on challenging Obamacare from many states, challenging every Executive Order, challenges to the EPA’s regulations, you name it, someone has challenged it.
1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean would be a good start
Yeah; attorney fees are a waste of money on something that looks like it is headed to collapse under its own weight. Better to grab a bag of popcorn, sit back, and watch the slow motion crash & BERN, uh, burn.
Aside from O Care, the lawyers fighting the other stuff are actually indirectly fighting on behalf of The People who elected the Republicans pursuing those suits. EPA regulations alone are job killers and red tape dispensers.