What Does Everyone Think About the 2020 Presidential Candidates

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.