What Does Everyone Think About the 2020 Presidential Candidates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Libs just cannot let the Russian thing go. Even after being totally humiliated by Mueller and his team of Trump-hating democrats. What a monumental slap in the face!

The NBA has turned into an embarrassment to America. It's almost totally black, and the few token whites and browns are mostly from other countries. And now, to appease the Coward Kapernick crowd, there are "Governors" rather than owners. What a crock. The sooner that racist league disintegrates the better.

---

I predict the NBA players will soon start sitting during the national anthem. Their cause will be because all states don’t have laws letting men into women’s bathrooms. It’s as good a cause to make a stand on as any other they drum up. The liberal press will be all over it.

Note that the press took the NBA’s side on the NC “bathroom” law. It’s good to see our press and the NBA are finding some real important causes to stand up for. Lol

Midwest Player this is your liberal friends at work. Lol

Boy, this guy hit the nail on the head.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/06/polit...ump/index.html

Well, I try to not offer these unless they fit the thread, but it does:

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...g-in-rain.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Boy, this guy hit the nail on the head.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/06/polit...ump/index.html

---

Midwest Player, have you thought about getting your news from somewhere else besides CNN? No wonder you’re a robot zombie liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, I try to not offer these unless they fit the thread, but it does:

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...g-in-rain.html

---

Redietz, good read. Thanks for posting. I remember that game and the gaffe when they went for two.

About Trump, that’s one thing I really like about him. Trump never gives in and admits a mistake, even when he makes a blunder. It drives the liberal press bonkers. I remember watching Morning Joe (a liberal political talk program) and they were always critizing Trump, wanting him to apologize for this or that. And Trump never did.

Each time they would think his latest gaffe would be Trump’s downfall. But it never was. Btw, my favorite one was when Trump said McCain was no hero for being a prisoner of war. I thought, you know Trump is kind of right. How does being a prisoner make someone a hero? I had never thought of it that way before. That’s what I like about Trump. His blunt style. He doesn’t care how it sounds. He says what the average American thinks but is to afraid to say in this PC culture.

What the liberals have never got is the general public doesn’t care about all these “gotcha” moments the press lives for. Anyway, good to see Trump is NOT backing down and admitting a mistake. I like the rain excuse. Makes sense to me and it’s driving the press nuts, so it’s working.

deleted.

You lefties can talk shit all you want. It's not going to work for you. Not anymore. To many people are hip to the lefty lies, racism, fascism. It's Trump in 2020 and Trump Jr. in 2024. We're going to shove the Trumps down your lefty asshole throats until at least 2032. Now go take a piss in the women's room, lefty bitch/whine/moan candy asses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

You lefties can talk shit all you want. It's not going to work for you. Not anymore. To many people are hip to the lefty lies, racism, fascism. It's Trump in 2020 and Trump Jr. in 2024. We're going to shove the Trumps down your lefty asshole throats until at least 2032. Now go take a piss in the women's room, lefty bitch/whine/moan candy asses.

---

LOL. But mickey, how do you really feel?

So are you purposefully being misogynist, mickey? Tsk, tsk. Bad boy. Because even though I'm left of Marx, I might be on board with having back-to-back Trumps if their names were Melania and Ivana. We'd be getting the brains of the family, then, and that might work out pretty well. Ivana, as I understand it, was actually a very, very bright cookie in all endeavors. And Melania, far as I can tell, may be KGB, which takes brains, discipline, and a certain cold-bloodedness.

Speaking of bathrooms, I was at a club in Knoxville (not a bastion of liberalness, I can tell you) a couple of weeks ago. I had to use the restroom, but I was confronted with one door with a red demon head on it and another door with a green demon head on it. No other markings -- just demon heads. I wasn't going to stand there and debate any kind of code for who should go where, so I just walked in the door nearest to me. No urinal, but I'm not sure that meant anything. Never found out if the other door had a urinal, and I didn't really care enough to find out. Maybe next time I'm there.

Here's my bumper sticker:

MELANIA 2020: LOOKS AND BRAINS PUT HER TWO STEPS AHEAD OF EVERYBODY ELSE!

[/QUOTE]
MELANIA 2020: LOOKS AND BRAINS PUT HER TWO STEPS AHEAD OF EVERYBODY ELSE![/QUOTE]

It's obvious, is it not? After 8 years of having to see that country-hating, beastly Michelle Obama occasionally pop up on the screen, we all deserve Melania.

But it's part for the course. I'm stuck watching a lot more TV than I'd like while my foot's recovering. It doesn't matter the time of day. Turn on Fox News and you're treated to a collection of mostly blonde leg-crossers, each of whom either have won or could win any number of beauty contests. And the conservative female guests they have on are mostly cut from the same cloth.

But when I switch over to laugh at inept CNN and conspiracy theory MSLSD, you either get homos and dikes, or a collection of the most butt-ugly foreigners and minorities this side of the Serengeti.

It would be different if the liberals had anything intelligent to say. But Obama and his racism and divisiveness created Trump, Hillary's corruption and incompetence propelled Trump, and the people responded and will continue to respond in the same way just as mickey predicted.

MELANIA 2020: LOOKS AND BRAINS PUT HER TWO STEPS AHEAD OF EVERYBODY ELSE![/QUOTE]

It's obvious, is it not? After 8 years of having to see that country-hating, beastly Michelle Obama occasionally pop up on the screen, we all deserve Melania.

But it's part for the course. I'm stuck watching a lot more TV than I'd like while my foot's recovering. It doesn't matter the time of day. Turn on Fox News and you're treated to a collection of mostly blonde leg-crossers, each of whom either have won or could win any number of beauty contests. And the conservative female guests they have on are mostly cut from the same cloth.

But when I switch over to laugh at inept CNN and conspiracy theory MSLSD, you either get homos and dikes, or a collection of the most butt-ugly foreigners and minorities this side of the Serengeti.

It would be different if the liberals had anything intelligent to say. But Obama and his racism and divisiveness created Trump, Hillary's corruption and incompetence propelled Trump, and the people responded and will continue to respond in the same way just as mickey predicted.[/QUOTE]

Although I agree with almost all the points that you, Bob and Mickey make about Trump, I also know that when I read Mickey try and convey his point of view, I just know that the 2nd ape on the Evolution of Man chart is missing

You know, Keystone, it's just a theory -- LOL -- but methinks mickey may be trying to provoke some anti-Trump sentiments.

Not to give much away, but if somebody had put a gun to my head and asked me to choose between Ms. Clinton and The Donald, I would have just pulled the trigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know, Keystone, it's just a theory -- LOL -- but methinks mickey may be trying to provoke some anti-Trump sentiments.

Not to give much away, but if somebody had put a gun to my head and asked me to choose between Ms. Clinton and The Donald, I would have just pulled the trigger.

---

By you saying something stupid like that shows that you have nothing invested in the markets.

It's 2016 all over again-a choice between horrible or the worst imaginable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

It's 2016 all over again-a choice between horrible or the worst imaginable.

---

I disagree. At least now we have two candidates that are different. In the past, most the time both Democrats and Republicans would run the same candidate, a moderate liberal who pretty much believed the same things. For example, there was not much difference between George Bush senior and John Kerry.

Trump not only took on the Democratic Party but he took on the whole Republican establishment. Trump actually knows what he believes. He doesn’t put his finger up in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing that day. Trump doesn’t do polls to see which side he needs to be on.

And his message has resonated with the average Joes, even the average Joes in typical Democrat states, like Illinois and Michigan, which he won.

The fact that the liberals, the press (I know that’s being redundant, lol) and the Democrats hate him and the Republican establishment is scared of him is telling you he’s accomplishing something great, kind of like Reagon.

Now we know his message didn’t reach all the way up to Midwest Player territory in the U.P., you know to people who have never seen a black person except in a movie or TV, Lol. But I’m working on him. The first thing I gotta do is convince him to quit watching that stupid CNN and start watching some real news.

Midwest Player, do you get FOX up there in the U.P.? This is what you should be watching. You’ll need to watch it for a while to become deprogrammed from all the liberal garbage you’ve been fed over the years through CNN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know, Keystone, it's just a theory -- LOL -- but methinks mickey may be trying to provoke some anti-Trump sentiments.

Not to give much away, but if somebody had put a gun to my head and asked me to choose between Ms. Clinton and The Donald, I would have just pulled the trigger.

---

By you saying something stupid like that shows that you have nothing invested in the markets.

---

Either that or I don't really need any more money, eh?

When you're voting for the person in charge of the world's largest economy and largest military, only a child would make a decision based primarily on self interest.

For you Christians in the audience --

Matthew 19:24

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know, Keystone, it's just a theory -- LOL -- but methinks mickey may be trying to provoke some anti-Trump sentiments.

Not to give much away, but if somebody had put a gun to my head and asked me to choose between Ms. Clinton and The Donald, I would have just pulled the trigger.

---

By you saying something stupid like that shows that you have nothing invested in the markets.

---

Either that or I don't really need any more money, eh?

When you're voting for the person in charge of the world's largest economy and largest military, only a child would make a decision based primarily on self interest.

For you Christians in the audience --

Matthew 19:24

---

More like you have zero investments, because you're still working at an age when successful people retire.

You probably know this, but the US has the most powerful military and not the largest.

Trump won the electoral vote because people who count voted for stated policies that would help them individually....and not for the person's policies that would have penalized them in order to help the slugs, illegals, and collection of minorities who would just as soon get handouts rather than work. California is a fine example of this, with its plethora of misguided voters who care nothing about the middle class workers within the majority electorate. And now, with the wretched homelessness saturating the confused liberal cities around that flakey state, it is very satisfying to watch as they all go down the tubes. Earthquakes are only the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Midwest Player, do you get FOX up there in the U.P.? This is what you should be watching. You’ll need to watch it for a while to become deprogrammed from all the liberal garbage you’ve been fed over the years through CNN.

---

Bob, I've tried watching FOX a few times, but after about 5 minutes I feel like I'm going to throw up. The only thing I can do to save myself is change the channel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Midwest Player, do you get FOX up there in the U.P.? This is what you should be watching. You’ll need to watch it for a while to become deprogrammed from all the liberal garbage you’ve been fed over the years through CNN.

---

Bob, I've tried watching FOX a few times, but after about 5 minutes I feel like I'm going to throw up. The only thing I can do to save myself is change the channel.

---

At least you tried. Sounds like you’re beyond help. Our liberal schools and liberal press have got to you and brainwashed your brain. You probably need more help than what watching Fox would accomplish anyway. You probably need some outside intervention help, and it doesn’t sound like there’s much of that up there in the U.P..

You’re in a sad situation. You might actually end up as a liberal when you die and that’s very rare. Usually people (who weren’t dropped on their head too often as babies) grow out of it as they age and see the ridiculous things liberals believe. I’ll be praying for you.

Reditz, what does it mean to be left of Marx exactly? Communist totalitarianism under Marx isn't enough dead people for you. You lean more towards real killers like Stalin, Mao or the dreaded Hitler maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

It's 2016 all over again-a choice between horrible or the worst imaginable.

---

If only someone else said that I would have thought that they were not talking politics but about Rob Singer's two books. Out of fairness to Rob, I have not invested in or read those books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

It's 2016 all over again-a choice between horrible or the worst imaginable.

---

If only someone else said that I would have thought that they were not talking politics but about Rob Singer's two books. Out of fairness to Rob, I have not invested in or read those books.

---

Honestly, the first two books were more about what NOT to do. The VPTruth site and his replies via emails contained many of his strategies, etc. After playing the suggested credits and observing while I played, the "feel" of playing win goals, etc. became second nature and I modified some sessions-like changing machines or games after it seemed futile to continue after it became obvious nothing was improving. In other words common sense. That's why I say it's a very flexible strategy and not a step one then step two approach. As far as Trump, I voted for him- let's just say he exasperates me every time he opens his mouth. But the "worst imaginable" would be the "socialists" giving our great country away- God bless America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Pete Buttigieg is moving up in the polls. He is now ranked third in a Monday poll. We don't need any more old men in the White House.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...c-primary-2020

---

Midwest Player, It’s not gonna matter who the Democrats run against Trump since Trump is going to win a landslide. And all the pollsers and liberal pundents (which is 90% of the press) are going to miss it, just like they did the last election.

Why? Because the public is not honest when they answer the pollster’s questions. Many don’t answer these questions correctly since they don’t want to be seen as a racists, and the mainstream media has labeled anybody who is a Tump supporter a racist. But when they get into the election booth where nobody knows what they’re doing, that’s when they will pull the Trump lever.

I look at my situation at work. When Trump comes up in a discussion, I never express my views since I’ve learned a long time ago the two subjects you never discuss at work are religion and politics. The last thing you want to be seen as supporting Trump in a group because you know there’s always going to be one or two people that are adamantly against him. Brainwashed liberals like you equate support for Trump as a support for racism. But when I’m in that voting booth, you can bet I’m pulling the Trump lever.

That’s why I like these forums. You can express your views openly without worrying about how it’ll affect your job. There is still freedom of speech on some of these forums like this one.

Midwest Player, the good news for you is you can openly express your political views since your views are aligned with the liberals and our PC culture. It appears you’ve bought all the liberals lies.

Queer Pete B. has zero chance because informed voters know he's not only all flash and no go--he'd never be able to even talk to half the world's leaders because of his stupid sexual choice---he'd be executed if he tried to step foot in several important middle eastern countries.

And enough of this gay agenda being shoved in our faces via the media anyway. You can't watch any new shows these days without homos, lesbians, or transgender freaks being a part of it. They're not even 1.5% of the population, yet they're in virtually every new show on TV spewing their sick nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

And enough of this gay agenda being shoved in our faces via the media anyway. You can't watch any new shows these days without homos, lesbians, or transgender freaks being a part of it. They're not even 1.5% of the population, yet they're in virtually every new show on TV spewing their sick nonsense.

---

Did you pull that figure out of your ass? They are more like 3.5% of the population. And there are millions, so they definitely can turn the tide of any election.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...T-Apr-2011.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/blog/turnout-201...eground-states

Don't rule out Pete yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

And enough of this gay agenda being shoved in our faces via the media anyway. You can't watch any new shows these days without homos, lesbians, or transgender freaks being a part of it. They're not even 1.5% of the population, yet they're in virtually every new show on TV spewing their sick nonsense.

---

Did you pull that figure out of your ass? They are more like 3.5% of the population. And there are millions, so they definitely can turn the tide of any election.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...T-Apr-2011.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/blog/turnout-201...eground-states

Don't rule out Pete yet.

---

Midwest Player, who cares how many queers and sex perverts there are? That’s not the point. The point is someone should not get special treatment just because they have some sextual perversion.

Are you still upset North Carolina had a law in place that didn’t allow men who put dresses on into the women’s bathrooms? Don’t worry that law has been changed. The NBA players saw to that. They wouldn’t play their All Star Game in Charlotte until men dressing up like women were allowed into women’s restrooms. This is the hill they decided to take a stand on. Lol

So you can rest easy now knowing that if you ever go to North Carolina you can use the women’s restroom without getting arrested. I don’t know how their law reads, but I don’t think you even need to dress like a women to use women’s restrooms.

Now your good friends, the liberals, can move onto their next great cause. I can’t wait to see what it is. It’ll be hard to trump the bathroom one. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

And enough of this gay agenda being shoved in our faces via the media anyway. You can't watch any new shows these days without homos, lesbians, or transgender freaks being a part of it. They're not even 1.5% of the population, yet they're in virtually every new show on TV spewing their sick nonsense.

---

Did you pull that figure out of your ass? They are more like 3.5% of the population. And there are millions, so they definitely can turn the tide of any election.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...T-Apr-2011.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/blog/turnout-201...eground-states

Don't rule out Pete yet.

---

You didn't listen.

Your figure includes every butthead who goes around claiming they're "bisexual". They like to think that moronic revelation impresses everyone. Mine does not.

Imagine a queer squirt like Pete B. trying to get a meeting with Putin or any leader in Saudi Arabia. They may not execute the little fairy, but you'll see them chop his little shit-covered weenie off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

And enough of this gay agenda being shoved in our faces via the media anyway. You can't watch any new shows these days without homos, lesbians, or transgender freaks being a part of it. They're not even 1.5% of the population, yet they're in virtually every new show on TV spewing their sick nonsense.

---

Did you pull that figure out of your ass? They are more like 3.5% of the population. And there are millions, so they definitely can turn the tide of any election.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...T-Apr-2011.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/blog/turnout-201...eground-states

Don't rule out Pete yet.

---

Pete Boodyfudge ain't going anywhere in the Democrat party. He can't win without the black vote. It's well known the black community don't like gays. And he's got problems with his all white police force in South Bend. How do you like the hypocrisy? Black people don't like being discriminated against but they discriminate against gays. You can't make this shit up.

Looking forward to Starbucks shutting down for a day and giving their employee's sensitivity training on how to treat cops.

Today I was reminded that even though I am left of Marx, my practical approach to things was partly shaped by Ross Perot. I thought he was the best candidate at the time and made the most sense to me. A large part of my respect for Perot came from his scientific approach. He was an advocate of testing economic, administrative, and infrastructure theories with small scale test runs to get a feel for the unseen problems that always pop up. He wanted formal testing to provide evidence of which direction was best. His first run, he got almost 20% of the vote.

He mixed folksy with class and with sincerity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

And enough of this gay agenda being shoved in our faces via the media anyway. You can't watch any new shows these days without homos, lesbians, or transgender freaks being a part of it. They're not even 1.5% of the population, yet they're in virtually every new show on TV spewing their sick nonsense.

---

Did you pull that figure out of your ass? They are more like 3.5% of the population. And there are millions, so they definitely can turn the tide of any election.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...T-Apr-2011.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/blog/turnout-201...eground-states

Don't rule out Pete yet.

---

Pete Boodyfudge ain't going anywhere in the Democrat party. He can't win without the black vote. It's well known the black community don't like gays. And he's got problems with his all white police force in South Bend. How do you like the hypocrisy? Black people don't like being discriminated against but they discriminate against gays. You can't make this shit up.

---

Mickey, I just looked up what you said and it appears you are right. Pete B should play down all the hugging and kissing of his spouse until the election is over. It does turn some folks off. He is a very smart guy, and I think he could serve our country well.

Here is my prediction. If Biden wins the nomination he will probably pick a woman as a running mate. Most likely Harris. If Harris or Warren wins, they won't pick an old man like Sanders or Biden. They will probably pick Pete B.

Where the hell is KJ, he should know if the gay community is going to support Pete lock, stock, and barrel.

I knew Ross Perot was getting old and I supported him as well and was really disappointed when he faded away. Seemingly all we have now to choose from is one party too far to the left and one party too far to the right. Ross Perot will be missed but unfortunately our country is not anywhere close to going in the direction he was hoping he could lead it in if his ideas could have taken hold with enough people. We really do have a desperate need for a 3rd party in the middle but both the r's and d's have such a strangle hold on the political process we may never see a viable third party candidate running for president.

Perot was goofy and his candidacy was a joke, much like the entirety of the democrat clowns that make fools of themselves in these stupid "debates".

This election won't be nearly as close as the last, and the last one wasn't close. The whiners like to point out how the popular vote went to Hillary, but they ignore how most of those type voters in Calif., NY and Illinois are irrelevant to our democracy.

The only democrat who even LOOKS presidential among that silly group is K. Harris, and if she gets the nomination it'll be by default. But as soon as she faces off against Trump in a debate she'll be exposed as a liberal dunce with crackpot ideas. Trump will tout his economy, tax cuts, deregulations, the market, jobs, minority employment rates, prison reform, foreign policy and on and on. And as soon as she starts in about gun control, it's game over. If she starts spewing one of her denials and lies about any of the Trump successes, the independents will start ordering their MAGA hats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

Reditz, what does it mean to be left of Marx exactly? Communist totalitarianism under Marx isn't enough dead people for you. You lean more towards real killers like Stalin, Mao or the dreaded Hitler maybe?

---

It means I think that everyone, regardless of status at birth or parents' income/wealth, should have equal access to all levels of education and job training if they have equal grades and aptitudes. That means everybody starts on an equal footing preschool. I have some quirks regarding health care, in that I would want the state picking up the tab only if people follow particular dietary and workout regimens. I guess that would be considered totalitarian. Oh well.

When I talk about equal opportunities in education, I don't mean just to get into particular high schools or colleges. I mean to be able to execute at school. Somebody working 20-30 hours a week at something not related to their area of study is at an enormous disadvantage compared to someone who can devote the hours to the field of study. Malcolm Gladwell would point out that working 20 hours a week per year (most college students take five years these days) means 5000 hours, which is halfway to expertise, according to Gladwell. That 5000 hours is crucial. The U.S. system is woefully slanted to the wealthy, compared to other western democracies.

And let's not go with the mortality tallies. The United States isn't the worst, but it comes close. We're talking two separate genocides and the highest incarceration rate. Plus the first to use a nuclear weapon on a civilian populace. Not lacking in bloodthirstiness, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

Reditz, what does it mean to be left of Marx exactly? Communist totalitarianism under Marx isn't enough dead people for you. You lean more towards real killers like Stalin, Mao or the dreaded Hitler maybe?

---

It means I think that everyone, regardless of status at birth or parents' income/wealth, should have equal access to all levels of education and job training if they have equal grades and aptitudes. That means everybody starts on an equal footing preschool. I have some quirks regarding health care, in that I would want the state picking up the tab only if people follow particular dietary and workout regimens. I guess that would be considered totalitarian. Oh well.

When I talk about equal opportunities in education, I don't mean just to get into particular high schools or colleges. I mean to be able to execute at school. Somebody working 20-30 hours a week at something not related to their area of study is at an enormous disadvantage compared to someone who can devote the hours to the field of study. Malcolm Gladwell would point out that working 20 hours a week per year (most college students take five years these days) means 5000 hours, which is halfway to expertise, according to Gladwell. That 5000 hours is crucial. The U.S. system is woefully slanted to the wealthy, compared to other western democracies.

And let's not go with the mortality tallies. The United States isn't the worst, but it comes close. We're talking two separate genocides and the highest incarceration rate. Plus the first to use a nuclear weapon on a civilian populace. Not lacking in bloodthirstiness, not that there's anything wrong with that.

---

What has all that got to do with Karl Marx? He's one of the most heinous and evil men to have ever been born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

And let's not go with the mortality tallies. The United States isn't the worst, but it comes close. We're talking two separate genocides and the highest incarceration rate. Plus the first to use a nuclear weapon on a civilian populace. Not lacking in bloodthirstiness, not that there's anything wrong with that.

---

Redietz, are you serious? Are you really trotting out these classic go-to liberal attacks on America? Yes, American was the first country to use a nuclear weapon. Guess what? We were also the first country to develop one. What do you think would have happened if Germany, Japan, or any other country had developed one before us? I’ll give you a clue. They would have used it first.

I don’t know if you remember your history but we were in WWII when we used it. Most historians believe dropping it on Japan saved millions of lives and led to the end of the war. The alternative was to have an conventional mainline assault on Japan, which would have led to many more Japanese and American deaths. Evil (which Japan and Germany were at that time) only understands one thing....and that’s a big stick. And a nuclear bomb is a pretty big stick.

As far as our high prison population this is the result of all the goofball social programs started by the liberals in the 60s. They were designed to break up the family (which is the best way to raise children) and promote laziness and dependency on the government. Basically, the Democates warehoused large parts of our minority population in projects in the inner city and then drove out business through punitive tax policies. The liberals pretty much destroyed the inner cities and created the surge in crime we’ve seen and the mess we’re currently living with.

The conservatives are trying to clean up this mess. But it won’t be easy since the Democates took over 50 years to create it.

redietz is no different than most other liberals of today: he hates America, he hates what it stands for, and he hates our history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Today I was reminded that even though I am left of Marx, my practical approach to things was partly shaped by Ross Perot. I thought he was the best candidate at the time and made the most sense to me. A large part of my respect for Perot came from his scientific approach. He was an advocate of testing economic, administrative, and infrastructure theories with small scale test runs to get a feel for the unseen problems that always pop up. He wanted formal testing to provide evidence of which direction was best. His first run, he got almost 20% of the vote.

He mixed folksy with class and with sincerity.

---

Bill Clinton would have lost if not for Ross Perot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Today I was reminded that even though I am left of Marx, my practical approach to things was partly shaped by Ross Perot. I thought he was the best candidate at the time and made the most sense to me. A large part of my respect for Perot came from his scientific approach. He was an advocate of testing economic, administrative, and infrastructure theories with small scale test runs to get a feel for the unseen problems that always pop up. He wanted formal testing to provide evidence of which direction was best. His first run, he got almost 20% of the vote.

He mixed folksy with class and with sincerity.

---

IIRC Redietz, Perot was sent an anonymous letter threatening harm to his family if he didn't drop out of the race, so he dropped out of the race. We could of used a pragmatist like him in the WH back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Today I was reminded that even though I am left of Marx, my practical approach to things was partly shaped by Ross Perot. I thought he was the best candidate at the time and made the most sense to me. A large part of my respect for Perot came from his scientific approach. He was an advocate of testing economic, administrative, and infrastructure theories with small scale test runs to get a feel for the unseen problems that always pop up. He wanted formal testing to provide evidence of which direction was best. His first run, he got almost 20% of the vote.

He mixed folksy with class and with sincerity.

---

IIRC Redietz, Perot was sent an anonymous letter threatening harm to his family if he didn't drop out of the race, so he dropped out of the race. We could of used a pragmatist like him in the WH back then.

---

I voted for Perot, and admittedly in hindsight, I was naive. Of the three candidates, Bill Clinton had my least amount of support (actually none). By voting for R.P., Clinton won with 43% of the vote.

Rush had an interesting take on that election yesterday. He thinks Perot, who had a personal feud with H.W. Bush, never really wanted or intended to win. He just wanted to screw Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Today I was reminded that even though I am left of Marx, my practical approach to things was partly shaped by Ross Perot. I thought he was the best candidate at the time and made the most sense to me. A large part of my respect for Perot came from his scientific approach. He was an advocate of testing economic, administrative, and infrastructure theories with small scale test runs to get a feel for the unseen problems that always pop up. He wanted formal testing to provide evidence of which direction was best. His first run, he got almost 20% of the vote.

He mixed folksy with class and with sincerity.

---

IIRC Redietz, Perot was sent an anonymous letter threatening harm to his family if he didn't drop out of the race, so he dropped out of the race. We could of used a pragmatist like him in the WH back then.

---

I voted for Perot, and admittedly in hindsight, I was naive. Of the three candidates, Bill Clinton had my least amount of support (actually none). By voting for R.P., Clinton won with 43% of the vote.

Rush had an interesting take on that election yesterday. He thinks Perot, who had a personal feud with H.W. Bush, never really wanted or intended to win. He just wanted to screw Bush.

---

The damage Clinton caused with NAFTA was immeasurable - I doubt the country will ever recover from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

IIRC Redietz, Perot was sent an anonymous letter threatening harm to his family if he didn't drop out of the race, so he dropped out of the race. We could of used a pragmatist like him in the WH back then.

---

I voted for Perot, and admittedly in hindsight, I was naive. Of the three candidates, Bill Clinton had my least amount of support (actually none). By voting for R.P., Clinton won with 43% of the vote.

Rush had an interesting take on that election yesterday. He thinks Perot, who had a personal feud with H.W. Bush, never really wanted or intended to win. He just wanted to screw Bush.

---

The damage Clinton caused with NAFTA was immeasurable - I doubt the country will ever recover from it.

---

He also essentially wiped out any strategic advantage the U.S. had by selling advanced U.S. missile technology to China. And, another key technological break China received, without having to spy to get it, was the deliverance of supercomputers once banned from export for security reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

I voted for Perot, and admittedly in hindsight, I was naive. Of the three candidates, Bill Clinton had my least amount of support (actually none). By voting for R.P., Clinton won with 43% of the vote.

Rush had an interesting take on that election yesterday. He thinks Perot, who had a personal feud with H.W. Bush, never really wanted or intended to win. He just wanted to screw Bush.

---

The damage Clinton caused with NAFTA was immeasurable - I doubt the country will ever recover from it.

---

He also essentially wiped out any strategic advantage the U.S. had by selling advanced U.S. missile technology to China. And, another key technological break China received, without having to spy to get it, was the deliverance of supercomputers once banned from export for security reasons.

---

Good points Danny. Maybe the most destructive US president in history.

[QUOTE=tableplay;90115]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

IIRC Redietz, Perot was sent an anonymous letter threatening harm to his family if he didn't drop out of the race, so he dropped out of the race. We could of used a pragmatist like him in the WH back then.

---

I voted for Perot, and admittedly in hindsight, I was naive. Of the three candidates, Bill Clinton had my least amount of support (actually none). By voting for R.P., Clinton won with 43% of the vote.

Rush had an interesting take on that election yesterday. He thinks Perot, who had a personal feud with H.W. Bush, never really wanted or intended to win. He just wanted to screw Bush.

---

I supported Clinton at the time. Thought he did a great job. But in hindsight NAFTA really screwed American workers over. All those jobs left the country for two decades. And he also sold us a bag of goods on North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

The damage Clinton caused with NAFTA was immeasurable - I doubt the country will ever recover from it.

---

He also essentially wiped out any strategic advantage the U.S. had by selling advanced U.S. missile technology to China. And, another key technological break China received, without having to spy to get it, was the deliverance of supercomputers once banned from export for security reasons.

---

Good points Danny. Maybe the most destructive US president in history.

---

But at the time in the late nineties he was quite popular. People didn’t care about the Monica lewinsky thing too much they just thought he was a stud muffin. The only ones that paid a price for the impeachment were the republicans in Congress who got swept out. I guess people were on a sugar high from the market going up every day. Unlike today’s market, back then the valuations were sky high and many companies didn’t even need to be profitable to be bid up. Then the dot com bubble burst in early 2000.
I think he lived up to the Teflon man moniker pretty well. Nothing stuck. Not so much now, the shine has come off and people are finally seeing who the Clinton’s are. Oh, and he took many a trip with Epstein to Lolita island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

I guess people were on a sugar high from the market going up every day.

---

A rising tide lifts all boats. Same goes for real estate. We should be thankful that Hitlery didn't win I guess. I mean I doubt things are salvageable at this point (I wish President Trump the best of luck in his effort to right the ship but it's probably a fool's errand) but she would have accelerated the decline. Voting outside the two major parties is very likely too little to late even if enough votes were garnered for a non-pathocracy president (IMHO the corporatocracy we have here in the states is just a consequence of the pathocracy we live in). The puppet strings aren't so tightly bound to President Trump as with previous recent presidents,so that's something - a very small glimmer of hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

I voted for Perot, and admittedly in hindsight, I was naive. Of the three candidates, Bill Clinton had my least amount of support (actually none). By voting for R.P., Clinton won with 43% of the vote.

Rush had an interesting take on that election yesterday. He thinks Perot, who had a personal feud with H.W. Bush, never really wanted or intended to win. He just wanted to screw Bush.

---

I supported Clinton at the time. Thought he did a great job. But in hindsight NAFTA really screwed American workers over. All those jobs left the country for two decades. And he also sold us a bag of goods on North Korea.

---

---

Yes, it took some time for the consequences to be fully realized due to the magnitude of the policy (like a slowly building Tsunami).

Damn, I can't believe all the Trump lovers here. There must be at least one other person here who doesn't have their brain stuck up their ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Damn, I can't believe all the Trump lovers here. There must be at least one other person here who doesn't have their brain stuck up their ass.

---

Some of us just don't care. There really is no difference any more. There used to be. It used to be Democrats wanted to spend, spend, spend and Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. The republicans no longer stand for smaller government, balancing a budget and fiscal responsibility. They just have different things they want to spend it on.

So now we are at were the Democrats want to take your tax dollars and give to the poor, build a safty net, many socialized programs. In other words they want to give to their base.

The Republicans want to spend just as much of your tax dollars. They just want to spend it on tax breaks and other programs that benefit the rich. Both sides know where there bread is buttered.

It is the middle class (what's left of us) that get screwed. We make too much to get all the freebies the Dems want to give the poor (their base) and not enough that we benefit from the tax breaks and programs the Repubs give to the rich (their base). We (the middle class) just foot the bill either way. :( Best we can hope for is divided government, like we currently have. That is when neither side can really get too much passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Damn, I can't believe all the Trump lovers here. There must be at least one other person here who doesn't have their brain stuck up their ass.

---

Rob is having a blast trolling the libtard celebrities on twitter. About time they got introduced to Mr. Singer. Oh, MP, did you hear? Nancy Pelosi and the blue dog democrats are now racists. That's the latest buzz from the far lefty wing of the party. But that's the way you lefties have always been. Can't make a cogent counter argument then just call them racists to stifle the debate. Except nobody is buying that bullshit anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Damn, I can't believe all the Trump lovers here. There must be at least one other person here who doesn't have their brain stuck up their ass.

---

Rob is having a blast trolling the libtard celebrities on twitter. About time they got introduced to Mr. Singer. Oh, MP, did you hear? Nancy Pelosi and the blue dog democrats are now racists. That's the latest buzz from the far lefty wing of the party. But that's the way you lefties have always been. Can't make a cogent counter argument then just call them racists to stifle the debate. Except nobody is buying that bullshit anymore.

---

Mick, that’s just like ANTIFA, they’re the FA(fascists) calling everyone they disagree with fascists. But they’ve gone way too far with the physical attacks. If the shoe was on the other foot they would have already been labeled a terrorist group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Damn, I can't believe all the Trump lovers here. There must be at least one other person here who doesn't have their brain stuck up their ass.

---

Rob is having a blast trolling the libtard celebrities on twitter. About time they got introduced to Mr. Singer. Oh, MP, did you hear? Nancy Pelosi and the blue dog democrats are now racists. That's the latest buzz from the far lefty wing of the party. But that's the way you lefties have always been. Can't make a cogent counter argument then just call them racists to stifle the debate. Except nobody is buying that bullshit anymore.

---

Atta boy, you actually sound like a reasonable, cognizant member of the human race when you make your points calmly and rationally, instead of the Geico caveman like usual

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Damn, I can't believe all the Trump lovers here. There must be at least one other person here who doesn't have their brain stuck up their ass.

---

So now we are at were the Democrats want to take your tax dollars and give to the poor, build a safty net, many socialized programs. In other words they want to give to their base.

---

KJ, let me make a bit of a distinction.
Democrats want to take your tax dollars (and mine)and give to NON-CITIZENS. We don't need to build a safety net we already have one which is quite large. Not just many socialized programs. SOCIALISM.
The democrats on the "debate" stage a few weeks ago all raised their hands when asked about giving free health care to non citizens, decriminalizing the border, free college, forgiving student debt, reparations, etc. FREE, FREE, FREE. We can't have open borders AND a welfare state. The math does not work.
There is a huge difference between the two parties. Democrats understand that they must have the Hispanic vote and change states demographics. If Texas ever falls they will never lose another election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

He also essentially wiped out any strategic advantage the U.S. had by selling advanced U.S. missile technology to China. And, another key technological break China received, without having to spy to get it, was the deliverance of supercomputers once banned from export for security reasons.

---

Good points Danny. Maybe the most destructive US president in history.

---

But at the time in the late nineties he was quite popular. People didn’t care about the Monica lewinsky thing too much they just thought he was a stud muffin. The only ones that paid a price for the impeachment were the republicans in Congress who got swept out. I guess people were on a sugar high from the market going up every day. Unlike today’s market, back then the valuations were sky high and many companies didn’t even need to be profitable to be bid up. Then the dot com bubble burst in early 2000.
I think he lived up to the Teflon man moniker pretty well. Nothing stuck. Not so much now, the shine has come off and people are finally seeing who the Clinton’s are. Oh, and he took many a trip with Epstein to Lolita island.

---

What are you talking about? People are finally seeing the Clinton's for who they are? It is true if something is repeated enough it starts to become true.

It is funny how many prosecutions came out of the Trump investigation vs Clinton's. You know Ken Starr had a hard-on for Clinton, but yet there wasn't enough there. Clinton's accusers pale in comparison to our current President's. Draining that swamp, lemme tell ya.

Our current President literally gets fractions flipped around. Like he has dementia so bad, he gets the numerator and denominator mixed up. He couldn't even do basic AP shit. You guys realize this, right?

Personally I like some of Trump's policies,but I'd be incredibly embarrassed to say I support him. He's a con. A good con, but still a con. Wake the f up.

So you guys are far smarter than me so lets look at Capitalism when under feudalsm. You know, rich land owners, making the serfs pay their rent. Like.. That was capitalism, no? Is there ever a point when capitalism is so skewed that it is screwed and needs a correction? Would you guys be ok with that? Say it wasn't the King who owned the land, just a large corporation. In the end, they [land owning corporataion] won capitalism and well everyone needs a place to live, so suck it up! Can't have sociaism!

Hey what about Trump giving back money to these farmers. I get it, so now we have to pay higher pricers due to tariffs, and that money is sent as bail-out money to farmers. <Scratches head> Smells like socialism to me. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Good points Danny. Maybe the most destructive US president in history.

---

But at the time in the late nineties he was quite popular. People didn’t care about the Monica lewinsky thing too much they just thought he was a stud muffin. The only ones that paid a price for the impeachment were the republicans in Congress who got swept out. I guess people were on a sugar high from the market going up every day. Unlike today’s market, back then the valuations were sky high and many companies didn’t even need to be profitable to be bid up. Then the dot com bubble burst in early 2000.
I think he lived up to the Teflon man moniker pretty well. Nothing stuck. Not so much now, the shine has come off and people are finally seeing who the Clinton’s are. Oh, and he took many a trip with Epstein to Lolita island.

---

What are you talking about? People are finally seeing the Clinton's for who they are? It is true if something is repeated enough it starts to become true.

It is funny how many prosecutions came out of the Trump investigation vs Clinton's. You know Ken Starr had a hard-on for Clinton, but yet there wasn't enough there. Clinton's accusers pale in comparison to our current President's. Draining that swamp, lemme tell ya.

Our current President literally gets fractions flipped around. Like he has dementia so bad, he gets the numerator and denominator mixed up. He couldn't even do basic AP shit. You guys realize this, right?

Personally I like some of Trump's policies,but I'd be incredibly embarrassed to say I support him. He's a con. A good con, but still a con. Wake the f up.

---

Here's a flash brainy. Mueller dislikes Trump, and every prosecutor he hired hated Trump and loved Hillary.

If there were ever a team who could find or even spin something into Trump being guilty of anything, it was this group of flailing, biased bozos.

The Clintons' time is coming. There will be more tears shed on CNN, MSNBC, and the networks than a bunch of babies being tear-gassed. And it will be glorious to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

But at the time in the late nineties he was quite popular. People didn’t care about the Monica lewinsky thing too much they just thought he was a stud muffin. The only ones that paid a price for the impeachment were the republicans in Congress who got swept out. I guess people were on a sugar high from the market going up every day. Unlike today’s market, back then the valuations were sky high and many companies didn’t even need to be profitable to be bid up. Then the dot com bubble burst in early 2000.
I think he lived up to the Teflon man moniker pretty well. Nothing stuck. Not so much now, the shine has come off and people are finally seeing who the Clinton’s are. Oh, and he took many a trip with Epstein to Lolita island.

---

What are you talking about? People are finally seeing the Clinton's for who they are? It is true if something is repeated enough it starts to become true.

It is funny how many prosecutions came out of the Trump investigation vs Clinton's. You know Ken Starr had a hard-on for Clinton, but yet there wasn't enough there. Clinton's accusers pale in comparison to our current President's. Draining that swamp, lemme tell ya.

Our current President literally gets fractions flipped around. Like he has dementia so bad, he gets the numerator and denominator mixed up. He couldn't even do basic AP shit. You guys realize this, right?

Personally I like some of Trump's policies,but I'd be incredibly embarrassed to say I support him. He's a con. A good con, but still a con. Wake the f up.

---

Here's a flash brainy. Mueller dislikes Trump, and every prosecutor he hired hated Trump and loved Hillary.

If there were ever a team who could find or even spin something into Trump being guilty of anything, it was this group of flailing, biased bozos.

The Clintons' time is coming. There will be more tears shed on CNN, MSNBC, and the networks than a bunch of babies being tear-gassed. And it will be glorious to see.

---

Here is a real flash. Kenn Starr hated Clinton. So I am comparing apples to apples, but your "flash" is trying to tell me I'm comparing apples to oranges. You see?

Clinton's aren't that bad. Bill is a bit of a perv, but seems like most men who rise to power are. Trump is likely worse than Clinton but who knows. Outside of that, the body count and all that other nonsense. Complete rubbish. It has been nothing but non-stop propaganda pumped out over right-wing news outlets for years. If there was something there, it'd been found by now. "Just wait and see" is the motto of the one who chose the wrong side of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

So you guys are far smarter than me so lets look at Capitalism when under feudalsm. You know, rich land owners, making the serfs pay their rent. Like.. That was capitalism, no? Is there ever a point when capitalism is so skewed that it is screwed and needs a correction? Would you guys be ok with that? Say it wasn't the King who owned the land, just a large corporation. In the end, they [land owning corporataion] won capitalism and well everyone needs a place to live, so suck it up! Can't have sociaism!

Hey what about Trump giving back money to these farmers. I get it, so now we have to pay higher pricers due to tariffs, and that money is sent as bail-out money to farmers. <Scratches head> Smells like socialism to me. Thoughts?

---

I've got news for you, brain surgeion. A certain percentage of farmers have been payed by the government to plow their crops under since the great depression. That's how long that socialism has been going on, way way before Trump. Roosevelt started it to control supply and demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

So you guys are far smarter than me so lets look at Capitalism when under feudalsm. You know, rich land owners, making the serfs pay their rent. Like.. That was capitalism, no? Is there ever a point when capitalism is so skewed that it is screwed and needs a correction? Would you guys be ok with that? Say it wasn't the King who owned the land, just a large corporation. In the end, they [land owning corporataion] won capitalism and well everyone needs a place to live, so suck it up! Can't have sociaism!

Hey what about Trump giving back money to these farmers. I get it, so now we have to pay higher pricers due to tariffs, and that money is sent as bail-out money to farmers. <Scratches head> Smells like socialism to me. Thoughts?

---

I've got news for you, brain surgeion. A certain percentage of farmers have been payed by the government to plow their crops under since the great depression. That's how long that socialism has been going on, way way before Trump. Roosevelt started it to control supply and demand.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/trum...ny-perdue.html

Trump has been growing this stuff. So let me explain to you. People have to pay higher prices for things due to Trump's tariffs. THey are nothing more than taxes on Americans. Ok, lets not bring that up, whatever, but then those higher taxes are turned around so government can play favorites. This is socialism and it has been growing under Trump as a result of his policies. Just because they're white and getting that free government money doesn't mean it isn't socialism.

You people have as many principles as your conman leader.

Make up more excuses for your socialism support and conman leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

THey are nothing more than taxes on Americans.

---

If tariffs are nothing more than taxes on Americans then why is China so upset about them ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

So you guys are far smarter than me so lets look at Capitalism when under feudalsm. You know, rich land owners, making the serfs pay their rent. Like.. That was capitalism, no? Is there ever a point when capitalism is so skewed that it is screwed and needs a correction? Would you guys be ok with that? Say it wasn't the King who owned the land, just a large corporation. In the end, they [land owning corporataion] won capitalism and well everyone needs a place to live, so suck it up! Can't have sociaism!

Hey what about Trump giving back money to these farmers. I get it, so now we have to pay higher pricers due to tariffs, and that money is sent as bail-out money to farmers. <Scratches head> Smells like socialism to me. Thoughts?

---

I've got news for you, brain surgeion. A certain percentage of farmers have been payed by the government to plow their crops under since the great depression. That's how long that socialism has been going on, way way before Trump. Roosevelt started it to control supply and demand.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/trum...ny-perdue.html

Trump has been growing this stuff. So let me explain to you. People have to pay higher prices for things due to Trump's tariffs. THey are nothing more than taxes on Americans. Ok, lets not bring that up, whatever, but then those higher taxes are turned around so government can play favorites. This is socialism and it has been growing under Trump as a result of his policies. Just because they're white and getting that free government money doesn't mean it isn't socialism.

You people have as many principles as your conman leader.

Make up more excuses for your socialism support and conman leader.

---

So your answer is to allow China to charge 20% tariffs on our goods but we only charge a 2% tariff on their goods? So you are all for American businesses being priced out of the Chinese market? All Trump did was match their tariffs. Fair trade or no trade.

Trump is doing exactly what he is supposed to do with the farmers. I'm happy for it. An asshole like you, on the other hand, would rather the farmers get hurt. The Chinks are trying to hurt Trump politically in the farm belt. Don't you get that or are you a Chi-Comm? Now go piss in the women's room, lefty.

"Now go piss in the women's room, lefty." That's funny, but I think you should have added beta somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

THey are nothing more than taxes on Americans.

---

If tariffs are nothing more than taxes on Americans then why is China so upset about them ?

---

The taxes increase the cost of their products to the American consumer and therefore the consumers buy less. The tax-payers ultimately pay for it, but one could argue that tariffs also come out of the Chinese pockets, because now the consumer is willing to pay the TAX plus the product. So in theory, Chinese could sell the same amount for the same tariffs.

It isn't that the Chinese are upset, it is that the average Trump supporter isn't smart enough to really understand that these are taxes on themselves. Or maybe they do, but refuse to call it what it is? Taxes raise revenue and can be punitive. In this case they're punitive, but they punish the Chinese so everything is "ok". Is that how it is supposed to work?

I'm not even arguing against the tariffs, just tired of the crap I see that is a product of taking in too many wingnut news outlets. Call a spade a fucking spade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

I've got news for you, brain surgeion. A certain percentage of farmers have been payed by the government to plow their crops under since the great depression. That's how long that socialism has been going on, way way before Trump. Roosevelt started it to control supply and demand.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/trum...ny-perdue.html

Trump has been growing this stuff. So let me explain to you. People have to pay higher prices for things due to Trump's tariffs. THey are nothing more than taxes on Americans. Ok, lets not bring that up, whatever, but then those higher taxes are turned around so government can play favorites. This is socialism and it has been growing under Trump as a result of his policies. Just because they're white and getting that free government money doesn't mean it isn't socialism.

You people have as many principles as your conman leader.

Make up more excuses for your socialism support and conman leader.

---

So your answer is to allow China to charge 20% tariffs on our goods but we only charge a 2% tariff on their goods? So you are all for American businesses being priced out of the Chinese market? All Trump did was match their tariffs. Fair trade or no trade.

Trump is doing exactly what he is supposed to do with the farmers. I'm happy for it. An asshole like you, on the other hand, would rather the farmers get hurt. The Chinks are trying to hurt Trump politically in the farm belt. Don't you get that or are you a Chi-Comm? Now go piss in the women's room, lefty.

---

I'm the asshole because I point out Trump and his socialism? Are you for real? You guys scream about socialism but it really isn't that you're against socialism. Look at the mental gymnastics you've went through to be right in the above post.

One is accountable for their actions. Am I supposed to call you an asshole because you want to hurt black children who need their welfare? You guys would jump up and down ranting about socialism and all I do is point it out where it may not have been apparent. I wouldn't have a problem with people who are against socialism on principle, but thats not what is going on here. Trump is incredibly unprincipled just like his supporters.

Not even sure what I've said that makes me a leftist. Just because someone despises Trump as a human does not a leftist make. Sorry if that makes you squirm.

I do believe in personal accountability. Trump's supporters are being hurt, so now I have to foot the bill via food costs. Everyone wants something for free. I fail to see the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/trum...ny-perdue.html

Trump has been growing this stuff. So let me explain to you. People have to pay higher prices for things due to Trump's tariffs. THey are nothing more than taxes on Americans. Ok, lets not bring that up, whatever, but then those higher taxes are turned around so government can play favorites. This is socialism and it has been growing under Trump as a result of his policies. Just because they're white and getting that free government money doesn't mean it isn't socialism.

You people have as many principles as your conman leader.

Make up more excuses for your socialism support and conman leader.

---

So your answer is to allow China to charge 20% tariffs on our goods but we only charge a 2% tariff on their goods? So you are all for American businesses being priced out of the Chinese market? All Trump did was match their tariffs. Fair trade or no trade.

Trump is doing exactly what he is supposed to do with the farmers. I'm happy for it. An asshole like you, on the other hand, would rather the farmers get hurt. The Chinks are trying to hurt Trump politically in the farm belt. Don't you get that or are you a Chi-Comm? Now go piss in the women's room, lefty.

---

I'm the asshole because I point out Trump and his socialism? Are you for real? You guys scream about socialism but it really isn't that you're against socialism. Look at the mental gymnastics you've went through to be right in the above post.

One is accountable for their actions. Am I supposed to call you an asshole because you want to hurt black children who need their welfare? You guys would jump up and down ranting about socialism and all I do is point it out where it may not have been apparent. I wouldn't have a problem with people who are against socialism on principle, but thats not what is going on here. Trump is incredibly unprincipled just like his supporters.

Not even sure what I've said that makes me a leftist. Just because someone despises Trump as a human does not a leftist make. Sorry if that makes you squirm.

I do believe in personal accountability. Trump's supporters are being hurt, so now I have to foot the bill via food costs. Everyone wants something for free. I fail to see the difference.

---

Yeah, I guess in some convoluted way you’re right, each party tries to help their supporters. At least Republicans - and for sure Trump - tries to help productive people who make our country work.

Democrats like to give handouts to the illigals, and lazy people who don’t want to work. Liberal Democates are responsible for setting up welfare programs that cost our country about a half billion per year...that’s $500 million/yr. These are non-productive people, paid to sit on their ass.

And Democates are always trying to grow their base by allowing illegals into our country and then they try. to make them citizens.

How can you believe in personal accountability if you appear to support the other party, the liberal Democrats? The Democates are a party made up of fringe groups all looking for handouts. Trump supporters is what allows the liberals to give out these handouts.

There is nothing compassionate about using the strong arm of the government to extract money from one group (working people) and giving it to another group (lazy people who don’t want to work).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

So your answer is to allow China to charge 20% tariffs on our goods but we only charge a 2% tariff on their goods? So you are all for American businesses being priced out of the Chinese market? All Trump did was match their tariffs. Fair trade or no trade.

Trump is doing exactly what he is supposed to do with the farmers. I'm happy for it. An asshole like you, on the other hand, would rather the farmers get hurt. The Chinks are trying to hurt Trump politically in the farm belt. Don't you get that or are you a Chi-Comm? Now go piss in the women's room, lefty.

---

I'm the asshole because I point out Trump and his socialism? Are you for real? You guys scream about socialism but it really isn't that you're against socialism. Look at the mental gymnastics you've went through to be right in the above post.

One is accountable for their actions. Am I supposed to call you an asshole because you want to hurt black children who need their welfare? You guys would jump up and down ranting about socialism and all I do is point it out where it may not have been apparent. I wouldn't have a problem with people who are against socialism on principle, but thats not what is going on here. Trump is incredibly unprincipled just like his supporters.

Not even sure what I've said that makes me a leftist. Just because someone despises Trump as a human does not a leftist make. Sorry if that makes you squirm.

I do believe in personal accountability. Trump's supporters are being hurt, so now I have to foot the bill via food costs. Everyone wants something for free. I fail to see the difference.

---

Yeah, I guess in some convoluted way you’re right, each party tries to help their supporters. At least Republicans - and for sure Trump - tries to help productive people who make our country work.

Democrats like to give handouts to the illigals, and lazy people who don’t want to work. Liberal Democates are responsible for setting up welfare programs that cost our country about a half billion per year...that’s $500 million/yr. These are non-productive people, paid to sit on their ass.

And Democates are always trying to grow their base by allowing illegals into our country and then they try. to make them citizens.

How can you believe in personal accountability if you appear to support the other party, the liberal Democrats? The Democates are a party made up of fringe groups all looking for handouts. Trump supporters is what allows the liberals to give out these handouts.

There is nothing compassionate about using the strong arm of the government to extract money from one group (working people) and giving it to another group (lazy people who don’t want to work).

---

While I voted last year, I did not vote Democrat.

Ahh I see, so socialism is ok if someone "works" for it. At least we're getting somewhere. You can get shit free from the government, but you have to work for that free money.

The problem with you guys, is you've been under a mental barrage of rightwing propaganda.

Liberalism is an umbrella which under a lot of things fall. Far moreso than conservative. If you were to make up a random goofy belief, it is far more likely to fall under a liberal label. So why does it matter? It matters because you guys seem to throw it all together to make it simple and have something to be angry about.

I've known lots of conservatives who were against spending all that money on the military. Those guys actually had some principles and were against big government all around. Others will scream we need a strong military and empty their pockets with delight to pay for it. Who is more conservative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I'm the asshole because I point out Trump and his socialism? Are you for real? You guys scream about socialism but it really isn't that you're against socialism. Look at the mental gymnastics you've went through to be right in the above post.

One is accountable for their actions. Am I supposed to call you an asshole because you want to hurt black children who need their welfare? You guys would jump up and down ranting about socialism and all I do is point it out where it may not have been apparent. I wouldn't have a problem with people who are against socialism on principle, but thats not what is going on here. Trump is incredibly unprincipled just like his supporters.

Not even sure what I've said that makes me a leftist. Just because someone despises Trump as a human does not a leftist make. Sorry if that makes you squirm.

I do believe in personal accountability. Trump's supporters are being hurt, so now I have to foot the bill via food costs. Everyone wants something for free. I fail to see the difference.

---

Yeah, I guess in some convoluted way you’re right, each party tries to help their supporters. At least Republicans - and for sure Trump - tries to help productive people who make our country work.

Democrats like to give handouts to the illigals, and lazy people who don’t want to work. Liberal Democates are responsible for setting up welfare programs that cost our country about a half billion per year...that’s $500 million/yr. These are non-productive people, paid to sit on their ass.

And Democates are always trying to grow their base by allowing illegals into our country and then they try. to make them citizens.

How can you believe in personal accountability if you appear to support the other party, the liberal Democrats? The Democates are a party made up of fringe groups all looking for handouts. Trump supporters is what allows the liberals to give out these handouts.

There is nothing compassionate about using the strong arm of the government to extract money from one group (working people) and giving it to another group (lazy people who don’t want to work).

---

While I voted last year, I did not vote Democrat.

Ahh I see, so socialism is ok if someone "works" for it. At least we're getting somewhere. You can get shit free from the government, but you have to work for that free money.

The problem with you guys, is you've been under a mental barrage of rightwing propaganda.

Liberalism is an umbrella which under a lot of things fall. Far moreso than conservative. If you were to make up a random goofy belief, it is far more likely to fall under a liberal label. So why does it matter? It matters because you guys seem to throw it all together to make it simple and have something to be angry about.

I've known lots of conservatives who were against spending all that money on the military. Those guys actually had some principles and were against big government all around. Others will scream we need a strong military and empty their pockets with delight to pay for it. Who is more conservative?

---

If you read the link you attached, you’d understand why Trump did this, meaning help the farmers during this trade war (or tiff if you like) with the Chinese. He’s not just arbitrarily giving money to a group for no reason like the Democrates do.

As far as the military, this is the main function of a government from a conservative standpoint - to protect its citizens. Obviously, there is no right answer on how big the military should be. But a conservative knows no matter how big or small the military is, a liberal Democrats will always try to take money away from it to support one of its goofball liberal projects, or just use this money for handouts to some fringe group to get their vote.

Democrats have no principles. Look at Bill Clinton. He stuck his finger in the wind (took polls) everyday to figure out which side he should be one.

Just like I thought would happen, the Pete B bashing begins. I'm sure Trump will eventually get involved also.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/media...ion/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Just like I thought would happen, the Pete B bashing begins. I'm sure Trump will eventually get involved also.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/media...ion/index.html

---

Midwest Player, do you get your news from any other place than CNN? Just curious. No wonder you’re a liberal drone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I'm the asshole because I point out Trump and his socialism? Are you for real? You guys scream about socialism but it really isn't that you're against socialism. Look at the mental gymnastics you've went through to be right in the above post.

One is accountable for their actions. Am I supposed to call you an asshole because you want to hurt black children who need their welfare? You guys would jump up and down ranting about socialism and all I do is point it out where it may not have been apparent. I wouldn't have a problem with people who are against socialism on principle, but thats not what is going on here. Trump is incredibly unprincipled just like his supporters.

Not even sure what I've said that makes me a leftist. Just because someone despises Trump as a human does not a leftist make. Sorry if that makes you squirm.

I do believe in personal accountability. Trump's supporters are being hurt, so now I have to foot the bill via food costs. Everyone wants something for free. I fail to see the difference.

---

Yeah, I guess in some convoluted way you’re right, each party tries to help their supporters. At least Republicans - and for sure Trump - tries to help productive people who make our country work.

Democrats like to give handouts to the illigals, and lazy people who don’t want to work. Liberal Democates are responsible for setting up welfare programs that cost our country about a half billion per year...that’s $500 million/yr. These are non-productive people, paid to sit on their ass.

And Democates are always trying to grow their base by allowing illegals into our country and then they try. to make them citizens.

How can you believe in personal accountability if you appear to support the other party, the liberal Democrats? The Democates are a party made up of fringe groups all looking for handouts. Trump supporters is what allows the liberals to give out these handouts.

There is nothing compassionate about using the strong arm of the government to extract money from one group (working people) and giving it to another group (lazy people who don’t want to work).

---

While I voted last year, I did not vote Democrat.

Ahh I see, so socialism is ok if someone "works" for it. At least we're getting somewhere. You can get shit free from the government, but you have to work for that free money.

The problem with you guys, is you've been under a mental barrage of rightwing propaganda.

Liberalism is an umbrella which under a lot of things fall. Far moreso than conservative. If you were to make up a random goofy belief, it is far more likely to fall under a liberal label. So why does it matter? It matters because you guys seem to throw it all together to make it simple and have something to be angry about.

I've known lots of conservatives who were against spending all that money on the military. Those guys actually had some principles and were against big government all around. Others will scream we need a strong military and empty their pockets with delight to pay for it. Who is more conservative?

---

Mr. brainsinquestion, what an ignorant slut you are. You've branded me a righty. I'm in the middle. That's how stupid you lefty's are. Anyone, even just slightly to the right of you is an arch conservative in your eyes. I got idiots like you on my left and conservatives on my right. I don't want cuts in government nor growth in government. This country has the right blend of socialism and capitalism as it is. Unregulated captialism is not good nor is to much socialism.

The problem with to much socialism is it stifles productivity. It destroys the incentive to produce. Communism, socialism on steroids, utterly failed because producers were relegated to the same class as the non-producers. It goes against human nature. Why would a producer keep producing when he gets nothing for it? Non-producers cannot sustain an existence without producers. To much socialism will stifle the economy and ultimately harm the very people you lefty's say you aim to help.

Your open borders policy harms the very people you say you aim to help. American minorities have to compete against the illegals for jobs and housing causing depressed wages and higher housing costs. This is some simple stuff that you lefty's don't give a rats ass about. You need a permanent low income/welfare class to maintain what power you have. Your policies in this regard are ultimately racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

THey are nothing more than taxes on Americans.

---

If tariffs are nothing more than taxes on Americans then why is China so upset about them ?

---

The taxes increase the cost of their products to the American consumer and therefore the consumers buy less. The tax-payers ultimately pay for it, but one could argue that tariffs also come out of the Chinese pockets, because now the consumer is willing to pay the TAX plus the product. So in theory, Chinese could sell the same amount for the same tariffs.

It isn't that the Chinese are upset, it is that the average Trump supporter isn't smart enough to really understand that these are taxes on themselves. Or maybe they do, but refuse to call it what it is? Taxes raise revenue and can be punitive. In this case they're punitive, but they punish the Chinese so everything is "ok". Is that how it is supposed to work?

I'm not even arguing against the tariffs, just tired of the crap I see that is a product of taking in too many wingnut news outlets. Call a spade a fucking spade.

---

This analysis is too simplistic. If it is true as you claim that the tariffs are just a tax and directly coming out of consumer's pockets, then the 25% tariffs already imposed on Chinese products should have shown up as a large across the board rise in prices. But we just haven't seen that. Inflation in the US has barely changed and is relatively mild and still below Fed targets. How can that be? What is really happening is fourfold:

1. Chinese manufacturers have been forced to lower prices to protect their market share
2. China's inflation rate has doubled since January. They are devaluing the Yaun to make their exports less expensive.
3. Many global companies are still moving manufacturing away from china to other countries to avoid the tariffs.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/manufac...na-11563096601
4. Some of this is in fact paid for by US consumers. But it is clearly not a direct tax on consumers as you claim.

It's easy for you to say things like 'the average Trump supporter isn't smart enough to XYZ', but making blanket claims like Tariffs are just a tax on US consumers isn't right, isn't smart and tells us more about your hate for Trump than the current state of Free Trade economics. China's growth rate is the lowest in 3 decades. They, not the American Consumer are clearly paying for a good percent of the Tariffs. Of course they have retaliated and some of our Farmers are suffering too, but because of our huge trading deficit we have the upper hand and Trump's team recognizes this even if you do not.

My opinion is President Trump is exactly right in turning up the the pressure on China through tariffs. We need balanced trade and Fair Trade not allegedly 'Free Trade'. We do have the upper hand for now. If you know anything about the mercantile trading tactics of China you'd know they not at all about 'Free Trade'' and the longer we kicked the can down the road for some other President to deal with it, the harder it will be to fix.

If you want to learn more about how bad it is to continually run trade deficits and a novel approach to fixing it you might be interested in this 2003 article by Warren Buffet. That's back when our deficit with China was only $100 billion a year instead of the $500 billion it is today. I doubt you're really interested or understand the problem though.

https://fortune.com/2016/04/29/warre...foreign-trade/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Yeah, I guess in some convoluted way you’re right, each party tries to help their supporters. At least Republicans - and for sure Trump - tries to help productive people who make our country work.

Democrats like to give handouts to the illigals, and lazy people who don’t want to work. Liberal Democates are responsible for setting up welfare programs that cost our country about a half billion per year...that’s $500 million/yr. These are non-productive people, paid to sit on their ass.

And Democates are always trying to grow their base by allowing illegals into our country and then they try. to make them citizens.

How can you believe in personal accountability if you appear to support the other party, the liberal Democrats? The Democates are a party made up of fringe groups all looking for handouts. Trump supporters is what allows the liberals to give out these handouts.

There is nothing compassionate about using the strong arm of the government to extract money from one group (working people) and giving it to another group (lazy people who don’t want to work).

---

While I voted last year, I did not vote Democrat.

Ahh I see, so socialism is ok if someone "works" for it. At least we're getting somewhere. You can get shit free from the government, but you have to work for that free money.

The problem with you guys, is you've been under a mental barrage of rightwing propaganda.

Liberalism is an umbrella which under a lot of things fall. Far moreso than conservative. If you were to make up a random goofy belief, it is far more likely to fall under a liberal label. So why does it matter? It matters because you guys seem to throw it all together to make it simple and have something to be angry about.

I've known lots of conservatives who were against spending all that money on the military. Those guys actually had some principles and were against big government all around. Others will scream we need a strong military and empty their pockets with delight to pay for it. Who is more conservative?

---

Mr. brainsinquestion, what an ignorant slut you are. You've branded me a righty. I'm in the middle. That's how stupid you lefty's are. Anyone, even just slightly to the right of you is an arch conservative in your eyes. I got idiots like you on my left and conservatives on my right. I don't want cuts in government nor growth in government. This country has the right blend of socialism and capitalism as it is. Unregulated captialism is not good nor is to much socialism.

The problem with to much socialism is it stifles productivity. It destroys the incentive to produce. Communism, socialism on steroids, utterly failed because producers were relegated to the same class as the non-producers. It goes against human nature. Why would a producer keep producing when he gets nothing for it? Non-producers cannot sustain an existence without producers. To much socialism will stifle the economy and ultimately harm the very people you lefty's say you aim to help.

Your open borders policy harms the very people you say you aim to help. American minorities have to compete against the illegals for jobs and housing causing depressed wages and higher housing costs. This is some simple stuff that you lefty's don't give a rats ass about. You need a permanent low income/welfare class to maintain what power you have. Your policies in this regard are ultimately racist.

---

You sure do seem to scream a lot about socialism to be a moderate. This idea that Democrats need poor people to maintain their power and yet you claim you are moderate. Like that is their objective or something. Don't worry, Republicans will make people just as poor. Being poor is a relative thing. If you are moderate, show me the one post where you rail on Republicans. What policies of Republicans do you disagree with? The religous side's anti-gambling stance?

Amazing how much need you have to insult people personally and I'm sure you're no longer near the age of a kid. Stick with the machines, for they have treated you better.

To say you are racist because I'm for open-borders is a level of mental gymnastics i'll let others go through. To me, it is just epicly LOL.

I'm not for open borders, I'm just not for sinking a ton of money into a wall.

Think of it this way Micky, instead of being an AP, all you have to do is figure out how to scale a 20 foot wall with modest means. Which do you think is harder for the averrage young-middle aged person? To figure out how to be a machine AP, or how to climb over a wall?

It is just stupid pandering. "The wall" "The wall" blah blah chanting. Hate that shit. If someone doesn't agree with that then they want "open borders". Now we have a term that either means no wall, or means we think every immigrant should be allowed in? How about neither. Apparently much like you, I think things were just fine. Border crossings had been far far higher in the past. It was just a manufactured issue that appeals to the base racism in people.

There was a point when I didn't know who I liked more, Trump or Hillary. Then Trump said, (paraphrase) "Rapists, murderers, and thieves and some of them I assume are good people". As if the millions of hard working hispanics might not actually exist. Fuck him and his racist shit. I don't care that much if people are racist. Infact, I'm a bit of a racist myself, but the liberal in me realizes that we should never elect openly racist leaders. Just like we shouldn't vote for those who seriously talk about reparations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unowme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

If tariffs are nothing more than taxes on Americans then why is China so upset about them ?

---

The taxes increase the cost of their products to the American consumer and therefore the consumers buy less. The tax-payers ultimately pay for it, but one could argue that tariffs also come out of the Chinese pockets, because now the consumer is willing to pay the TAX plus the product. So in theory, Chinese could sell the same amount for the same tariffs.

It isn't that the Chinese are upset, it is that the average Trump supporter isn't smart enough to really understand that these are taxes on themselves. Or maybe they do, but refuse to call it what it is? Taxes raise revenue and can be punitive. In this case they're punitive, but they punish the Chinese so everything is "ok". Is that how it is supposed to work?

I'm not even arguing against the tariffs, just tired of the crap I see that is a product of taking in too many wingnut news outlets. Call a spade a fucking spade.

---

This analysis is too simplistic. If it is true as you claim that the tariffs are just a tax and directly coming out of consumer's pockets, then the 25% tariffs already imposed on Chinese products should have shown up as a large across the board rise in prices. But we just haven't seen that. Inflation in the US has barely changed and is relatively mild and still below Fed targets. How can that be? What is really happening is fourfold:

1. Chinese manufacturers have been forced to lower prices to protect their market share
2. China's inflation rate has doubled since January. They are devaluing the Yaun to make their exports less expensive.
3. Many global companies are still moving manufacturing away from china to other countries to avoid the tariffs.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/manufac...na-11563096601
4. Some of this is in fact paid for by US consumers. But it is clearly not a direct tax on consumers as you claim.

It's easy for you to say things like 'the average Trump supporter isn't smart enough to XYZ', but making blanket claims like Tariffs are just a tax on US consumers isn't right, isn't smart and tells us more about your hate for Trump than the current state of Free Trade economics. China's growth rate is the lowest in 3 decades. They, not the American Consumer are clearly paying for a good percent of the Tariffs. Of course they have retaliated and some of our Farmers are suffering too, but because of our huge trading deficit we have the upper hand and Trump's team recognizes this even if you do not.

My opinion is President Trump is exactly right in turning up the the pressure on China through tariffs. We need balanced trade and Fair Trade not allegedly 'Free Trade'. We do have the upper hand for now. If you know anything about the mercantile trading tactics of China you'd know they not at all about 'Free Trade'' and the longer we kicked the can down the road for some other President to deal with it, the harder it will be to fix.

If you want to learn more about how bad it is to continually run trade deficits and a novel approach to fixing it you might be interested in this 2003 article by Warren Buffet. That's back when our deficit with China was only $100 billion a year instead of the $500 billion it is today. I doubt you're really interested or understand the problem though.

https://fortune.com/2016/04/29/warre...foreign-trade/

---

This stuff is infinitely complex. Much like climate change. You are right, my analysis is too simple, much like yours. I only did an "analysis" to the extent to try to explain how tariffs are a tax. We both know how it works and we can argue in circles all day. A tariff is a tax, much like a sales tax. It could be called an import tax. Yes, the importer pays it, but mathematically those prices are passed on to consumer. I'm sure that was absorbed by existing Chinese margin and other things, but lets not overlook what it is.

I'm not even against the tariffs. I like them but for reasons I won't be explaining here. I just hate the way people eat them up then on another hand yell about taxes. I guess thats how politiucs will always be. Dumb people being manipulated.

I'll read your link. For the most part my only objective is to stir up hornet's nests and make people pause to think. Yes my arguments are relatively simplistic but they're aimed at even more simplistic reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

"Now go piss in the women's room, lefty." That's funny, but I think you should have added beta somewhere.

---

Could you imagine how funny he'd been if he'd thrown in the word cuck !!! hahaha. oh man that'd been funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

"Now go piss in the women's room, lefty." That's funny, but I think you should have added beta somewhere.

---

Could you imagine how funny he'd been if he'd thrown in the word cuck !!! hahaha. oh man that'd been funny.

---

I'm a Trump supporter that gets called a racist, fascist, nazi everyday in the main stream media. But if you lefties put up your bullshit propaganda up on this site I get to return the favor. Fuck you lefty, bitch, punk, racist, fascist bag of socialist shit. Now go jack off in the women's room, lefty cuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

THey are nothing more than taxes on Americans.

---

If tariffs are nothing more than taxes on Americans then why is China so upset about them ?

---

The taxes increase the cost of their products to the American consumer and therefore the consumers buy less. The tax-payers ultimately pay for it, but one could argue that tariffs also come out of the Chinese pockets, because now the consumer is willing to pay the TAX plus the product. So in theory, Chinese could sell the same amount for the same tariffs.

It isn't that the Chinese are upset, it is that the average Trump supporter isn't smart enough to really understand that these are taxes on themselves. Or maybe they do, but refuse to call it what it is? Taxes raise revenue and can be punitive. In this case they're punitive, but they punish the Chinese so everything is "ok". Is that how it is supposed to work?

I'm not even arguing against the tariffs, just tired of the crap I see that is a product of taking in too many wingnut news outlets. Call a spade a fucking spade.

---

This is a really stupid post by you. You are right about consumers buying less when tariffs are placed on a product. So guess what, dumb ass. The Chinese placed 20% tariffs on American goods 20 years ago while we we've been charging just 2%. Can you figure out the reason why? Just like you said, so their consumers will buy less American products. Meanwhile, with just a 2% tariff Americans are buying Chinese goods like crazy. Result? Huge trade deficits. To much wealth leaving America. If we don't stop it now then it will stop itself when all of the wealth has left the country.

Trump proposed zero tariffs between the two countries. The Chinks turned him down flat. Won't even negotiate. They want to play the tariff game because they think they can beat us at it. Cowering punks, Clinton/Bush/Obama let the assholes get away with it without so much as a whimper.

Enter Trump telling the Chinese "Bullshit is over, bitches. We are going to charge you the same tariffs you charge us. If you want to negotiate fine. If you don't I'm putting big ass tariffs on all your products."

The only wingnut around here is you, brainsinquestion, for thinking that The Chinese charging us ten times what we've been charging them is free and fair trade.

Wise up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

"Now go piss in the women's room, lefty." That's funny, but I think you should have added beta somewhere.

---

Could you imagine how funny he'd been if he'd thrown in the word cuck !!! hahaha. oh man that'd been funny.

---

I'm a Trump supporter that gets called a racist, fascist, nazi everyday in the main stream media. But if you lefties put up your bullshit propaganda up on this site I get to return the favor. Fuck you lefty, bitch, punk, racist, fascist bag of socialist shit. Now go jack off in the women's room, lefty cuck.

---

lol. Yea, the main stream media is causing all your problems.

I saw a clip how China is now using the 'fake news' lines in Hong Kong. Ugh. They've learned from Trump.

Chill out Micky. I'm a big fan.

Propaganda.. yea.. I'm spewing propaganda. That's the ticket.

This best part of this all, is Micky considers himself a moderate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

If tariffs are nothing more than taxes on Americans then why is China so upset about them ?

---

The taxes increase the cost of their products to the American consumer and therefore the consumers buy less. The tax-payers ultimately pay for it, but one could argue that tariffs also come out of the Chinese pockets, because now the consumer is willing to pay the TAX plus the product. So in theory, Chinese could sell the same amount for the same tariffs.

It isn't that the Chinese are upset, it is that the average Trump supporter isn't smart enough to really understand that these are taxes on themselves. Or maybe they do, but refuse to call it what it is? Taxes raise revenue and can be punitive. In this case they're punitive, but they punish the Chinese so everything is "ok". Is that how it is supposed to work?

I'm not even arguing against the tariffs, just tired of the crap I see that is a product of taking in too many wingnut news outlets. Call a spade a fucking spade.

---

This is a really stupid post by you. You are right about consumers buying less when tariffs are placed on a product. So guess what, dumb ass. The Chinese placed 20% tariffs on American goods 20 years ago while we we've been charging just 2%. Can you figure out the reason why? Just like you said, so their consumers will buy less American products. Meanwhile, with just a 2% tariff Americans are buying Chinese goods like crazy. Result? Huge trade deficits. To much wealth leaving America. If we don't stop it now then it will stop itself when all of the wealth has left the country.

Trump proposed zero tariffs between the two countries. The Chinks turned him down flat. Won't even negotiate. They want to play the tariff game because they think they can beat us at it. Cowering punks, Clinton/Bush/Obama let the assholes get away with it without so much as a whimper.

Enter Trump telling the Chinese "Bullshit is over, bitches. We are going to charge you the same tariffs you charge us. If you want to negotiate fine. If you don't I'm putting big ass tariffs on all your products."

The only wingnut around here is you, brainsinquestion, for thinking that The Chinese charging us ten times what we've been charging them is free and fair trade.

Wise up.

---

Do you have any references how this is just a matter of the US catching up with the tariff's China previously imposed? Charging us 10x ?

I thought China's game was currency controls.

Enlighten me, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

The taxes increase the cost of their products to the American consumer and therefore the consumers buy less. The tax-payers ultimately pay for it, but one could argue that tariffs also come out of the Chinese pockets, because now the consumer is willing to pay the TAX plus the product. So in theory, Chinese could sell the same amount for the same tariffs.

It isn't that the Chinese are upset, it is that the average Trump supporter isn't smart enough to really understand that these are taxes on themselves. Or maybe they do, but refuse to call it what it is? Taxes raise revenue and can be punitive. In this case they're punitive, but they punish the Chinese so everything is "ok". Is that how it is supposed to work?

I'm not even arguing against the tariffs, just tired of the crap I see that is a product of taking in too many wingnut news outlets. Call a spade a fucking spade.

---

This is a really stupid post by you. You are right about consumers buying less when tariffs are placed on a product. So guess what, dumb ass. The Chinese placed 20% tariffs on American goods 20 years ago while we we've been charging just 2%. Can you figure out the reason why? Just like you said, so their consumers will buy less American products. Meanwhile, with just a 2% tariff Americans are buying Chinese goods like crazy. Result? Huge trade deficits. To much wealth leaving America. If we don't stop it now then it will stop itself when all of the wealth has left the country.

Trump proposed zero tariffs between the two countries. The Chinks turned him down flat. Won't even negotiate. They want to play the tariff game because they think they can beat us at it. Cowering punks, Clinton/Bush/Obama let the assholes get away with it without so much as a whimper.

Enter Trump telling the Chinese "Bullshit is over, bitches. We are going to charge you the same tariffs you charge us. If you want to negotiate fine. If you don't I'm putting big ass tariffs on all your products."

The only wingnut around here is you, brainsinquestion, for thinking that The Chinese charging us ten times what we've been charging them is free and fair trade.

Wise up.

---

Do you have any references how this is just a matter of the US catching up with the tariff's China previously imposed? Charging us 10x ?

I thought China's game was currency controls.

Enlighten me, please.

---

Do your own homework. It's well known the Chinese have been charging us 10X the tariffs we were charging them. 20% tariffs on American cars. That's what the bitchfight is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

This is a really stupid post by you. You are right about consumers buying less when tariffs are placed on a product. So guess what, dumb ass. The Chinese placed 20% tariffs on American goods 20 years ago while we we've been charging just 2%. Can you figure out the reason why? Just like you said, so their consumers will buy less American products. Meanwhile, with just a 2% tariff Americans are buying Chinese goods like crazy. Result? Huge trade deficits. To much wealth leaving America. If we don't stop it now then it will stop itself when all of the wealth has left the country.

Trump proposed zero tariffs between the two countries. The Chinks turned him down flat. Won't even negotiate. They want to play the tariff game because they think they can beat us at it. Cowering punks, Clinton/Bush/Obama let the assholes get away with it without so much as a whimper.

Enter Trump telling the Chinese "Bullshit is over, bitches. We are going to charge you the same tariffs you charge us. If you want to negotiate fine. If you don't I'm putting big ass tariffs on all your products."

The only wingnut around here is you, brainsinquestion, for thinking that The Chinese charging us ten times what we've been charging them is free and fair trade.

Wise up.

---

Do you have any references how this is just a matter of the US catching up with the tariff's China previously imposed? Charging us 10x ?

I thought China's game was currency controls.

Enlighten me, please.

---

Do your own homework. It's well known the Chinese have been charging us 10X the tariffs we were charging them. 20% tariffs on American cars. That's what the bitchfight is all about.

---

Not so well known. The cars are like the best example, but we apparently export 6x the cars to China we import. Isn't that what we want!?

So why is that this bitchfight really all about? I would think bringing up car tariffs as an example is rather poorly chosen one by Trump.

Oh wait !

A red herring. Truth yet propaganda.

Again, I'm not even against the tariffs. If Trump wasn't such a sleazebag, I would listen more to him. The problem is he stands for nothing but pandering. Literally. He says so much random shit all over the map, it is pointless.

I mean the guy used to brag about how he wants to date his own daughter. Lol. In the normal world, thats code word for something quite disgusting. To Trump fans? I don't fucking know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Do you have any references how this is just a matter of the US catching up with the tariff's China previously imposed? Charging us 10x ?

I thought China's game was currency controls.

Enlighten me, please.

---

Do your own homework. It's well known the Chinese have been charging us 10X the tariffs we were charging them. 20% tariffs on American cars. That's what the bitchfight is all about.

---

Not so well known. The cars are like the best example, but we apparently export 6x the cars to China we import. Isn't that what we want!?

So why is that this bitchfight really all about? I would think bringing up car tariffs as an example is rather poorly chosen one by Trump.

Oh wait !

A red herring. Truth yet propaganda.

Again, I'm not even against the tariffs. If Trump wasn't such a sleazebag, I would listen more to him. The problem is he stands for nothing but pandering. Literally. He says so much random shit all over the map, it is pointless.

I mean the guy used to brag about how he wants to date his own daughter. Lol. In the normal world, thats code word for something quite disgusting. To Trump fans? I don't fucking know.

---

Alright, I'm bright eyed and bushy tailed and ready to kick some lefty punk ass. Trumps personality is not a question to me. It's keeping his campaign promises (something quite unique) and all the other great decisions he's made since becoming President. You want a mealy mouthed dirtbag politically correct President that is so nice to everybody....like Obumfuck....but doesn't do a damn thing for the people when he is in office.

I related a story once of how I told a friend that the word was his new foreman was a class A asshole. His response was "Yeah, that's what I need right now." Trump is the asshole we need right now to straighten this country and the infernal establishment politicians out. I can't stand them parasites. I'd like to bitchslap every one of them.