Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Well, Trump said Monday that he would reveal a “major” and “dramatic” stimulus proposal Tuesday, but today his economic adviser Larry Kudlow was trotted out .....and Kudlow proceeded to dodge all questions on when Trump’s proposal would come out, how big it would be, and when he could sign a potential stimulus plan.

In the meantime....the DOW dropped another 1500 points

Posted
6 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I will gladly debate any topic with you, when you grow up and prove that you can actually debate the topic. 

Okay, Boomer. Go activate that ignore feature now. ******* Trump Pawn.

Posted
6 minutes ago, JCon said:

And that's why they like Trump. He doesn't care about facts or science, he goes with what he feels, which, of course, flies in the face of facts and science. 

They like being dumb. It's "who" they are. 

This is probably the most inflammatory thing I have seen written on here in a long time. Real prickish stuff. 

Posted
1 minute ago, do or die said:

Well, Trump said Monday that he would reveal a “major” and “dramatic” stimulus proposal Tuesday, but today his economic adviser Larry Kudlow was trotted out .....and Kudlow proceeded to dodge all questions on when Trump’s proposal would come out, how big it would be, and when he could sign a potential stimulus plan.

In the meantime....the DOW dropped another 1500 points

Kudlow said just a couple of weeks ago that the virus was on lock down and going away. 

There is zero confidence from business in this administration. They've bungled this from the start. 

I wonder if the Emperor will be golfing this weekend? 

Posted
9 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Here's 11 racists for you, and I guess Trump makes 12? 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/would-a-president-trump-m_b_10135836

I'm not going to bother with the rest of subjective qualifications. 

OK, so on the stand alone "racist" card we are down from 90% to under 27%.

So now please add the "serial sex abuser" and criminal moron" factors. Remember, Trump hit all 3 criteria in that subjective post, and since you said it fits 90% of all US presidents you inherently agree with that characterization of Trump as all 3, and just want to normalize it. So, of the list of 11 others, who is the serial sex abuser as well? George W? Wilson? Reagan? One divorce does not make a serial sex abuser, IMO. Who is also the moron? FDR? Jefferson? Eisenhower?

Please bother with the rest of your subjective qualifications, since you are willing to debate "if we grow up". Or retract your claim.

Posted
Just now, TrueBlue4ever said:

OK, so on the stand alone "racist" card we are down from 90% to under 27%.

So now please add the "serial sex abuser" and criminal moron" factors. Remember, Trump hit all 3 criteria in that subjective post, and since you said it fits 90% of all US presidents you inherently agree with that characterization of Trump as all 3, and just want to normalize it. So, of the list of 11 others, who is the serial sex abuser as well? George W? Wilson? Reagan? One divorce does not make a serial sex abuser, IMO. Who is also the moron? FDR? Jefferson? Eisenhower?

Please bother with the rest of your subjective qualifications, since you are willing to debate "if we grow up". Or retract your claim.

Yup, I consider all politicians to be corrupt in some way, they are all beholden to some interest group, so I would submit that all 41 presidents were criminal in some way, shape or form. As for serial sexual abusers, that standard has evolved so much recently, 20 years ago, you could pinch or slap a butt as I am sure every president has done. So I rest my case. 

Posted

Pigseye:

25 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I will gladly debate any topic with you, when you grow up and prove that you can actually debate the topic. 

Also Pigseye:

28 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I reject the article because CNN is nothing more than an anti-Trump mouth piece. Pot meet kettle. 

 

52 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Since all those qualifications are subjective only, and can't be quantified, I stand by 90% figure as my "best guess" 

 

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

I would present you with sources but you'd just declare them as invalid because they didn't come from your approved list of propaganda outlets. 

 

Again, Pigseye:

"when you grow up and prove that you can actually debate the topic."

And also Pigseye:

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Not my fault if can't read a peer reviewed scientific study, or don't understand the actual science, finish school first Greta, then come back. 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Yup, I consider all politicians to be corrupt in some way, they are all beholden to some interest group, so I would submit that all 41 presidents were criminal in some way, shape or form. As for serial sexual abusers, that standard has evolved so much recently, 20 years ago, you could pinch or slap a butt as I am sure every president has done. So I rest my case. 

Well, your case was 90%, so now that it is 27% it is hardly rested, unless you've conceded the wild exaggeration from the beginning. I'll accept that all presidents have power and make decisions for national interests that would be considered morally unethical if not criminal if undertaken by the average citizen, but the qualification was "moronic criminal" (I've even left out the "dangerous" qualifier for you). So who was the moron? And show me the documented cases of butt pinch/slap/harassment that would rise to the level of serial sex abuser like the standard Trump is being held to. Remember, you want to normalize and dismiss Trump's behaviour by saying 90% of presidents were like that, so you have to back up that claim. Not enough to say "I'm sure it happened, so there is my evidence, case closed" unless you want the judge to come back with a verdict against your client for lack of evidence. Show your work, please, or retract your 90% claim as trolling.

Posted
1 hour ago, johnzo said:

I guess if you think that all problems reduce to just writing a cheque in the right amount, you could believe that.

 

But money is the "gotcha" point you used..

As far as governmental red tape and beurocratic mismangement surely youre not suggesting this was invented in 2016 ? Surely youre not ignoring state and city governments, many of which arent republican,  have a role to play?

Surely youre not ignoring how globalism, which both parties worship, has robbed countries of the ability to be more self sufficient in extraordinary times like this.

Exploiting a crisis like this to score points is despicable but not surprising.

Posted
1 minute ago, Zontar said:

But money is the "gotcha" point you used..

As far as governmental red tape and beurocratic mismangement surely youre not suggesting this was invented in 2016 ? Surely youre not ignoring state and city governments, many of which arent republican,  have a role to play?

Surely youre not ignoring how globalism, which both parties worship, has robbed countries of the ability to be more self sufficient in extraordinary times like this.

Exploiting a crisis like this to score points is despicable but not surprising.

But but but whataboutism 

by the way the people talking about Coronavirus are not exploring it.  The idiot in the White House having Secret meetings and telling people to go to work and calling it a hoax is the one exploiting.  And we agree, that’s despicable 

Posted

Trump will talk to the nation tonight and tell them it's not his fault that the professionals are not listening to a stable genius and he would of figured out a vaccine months ago and then circle back to the virus is a hoax and will disappear  any moment now and them will look straight into the camera and say that people dying is fake news, but he has to go cause he has got a rally to get to followed by a weekend of golf.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Well, your case was 90%, so now that it is 27% it is hardly rested, unless you've conceded the wild exaggeration from the beginning. I'll accept that all presidents have power and make decisions for national interests that would be considered morally unethical if not criminal if undertaken by the average citizen, but the qualification was "moronic criminal" (I've even left out the "dangerous" qualifier for you). So who was the moron? And show me the documented cases of butt pinch/slap/harassment that would rise to the level of serial sex abuser like the standard Trump is being held to. Remember, you want to normalize and dismiss Trump's behaviour by saying 90% of presidents were like that, so you have to back up that claim. Not enough to say "I'm sure it happened, so there is my evidence, case closed" unless you want the judge to come back with a verdict against your client for lack of evidence. Show your work, please, or retract your 90% claim as trolling.

Just tell me when you want me to stop

https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-presidents-have-been-accused-sexual-assault-692766

https://www.businessinsider.com/president-sex-scandal-history-2018-3

https://www.voanhttps://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Sexual-Affairs-by-US-Presidents

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Sexual-Affairs-by-US-Presidents

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/these-are-the-presidents-who-violated-the-constitution-and-how-donald-trump-compares.html/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122523872418278233

https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-claims-presidents-have-power-to-violate-constitution/

https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/52988

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, pigseye said:

Yup, I consider all politicians to be corrupt in some way, they are all beholden to some interest group, so I would submit that all 41 presidents were criminal in some way, shape or form. As for serial sexual abusers, that standard has evolved so much recently, 20 years ago, you could pinch or slap a butt as I am sure every president has done. So I rest my case. 

Yeah, that is the same as pinning someone down and forcibly raping them. go rest that case some more.

Posted
2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yeah, that is the same as pinning someone down and forcibly raping them. go rest that case some more.

I already admitted that the definition has evolved, but as it stands right now, I don't even have to touch you to be accused of sexual abuse. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...