Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[Samson's Flow]

On 3/9/2019 at 2:50 PM, Scottysabres said:

Thoughts on Trump Presidency.

Mixed bag. Not fond of his use of tariffs as muscle, but, understandable given the slip in economics over a 40 year period.

Like his security of nation first prioritizing, after all, it does no good to support, not support if I'm dead.

Not a fan of his personal responses to situations, no matter what they are, the Presidency is above that.

I am a fan however, of going right to the people via twitter and other platforms.

Would like to see more compromise in an effort to bring the nation together, however, the other political party has made that impossible as well.

Foreign affairs is a mixed bag, I would like to see more engagement on the China trade front, but, we are not privy to all that is going on behind the scenes.

And that leads me to my last gripe on him, transparency, while it's never been higher in my lifetime in any event, it's still subpar.

Economics - A

Security - A

Unity - C (F overall, but B for trying, even if half heartedly, and can you blame him? averaging to a C)

Best interest of the nation in mind - A

Foreign Affairs - C

I'm interested in understanding why you give the Economics aspect an A when we have the largest trade deficit in ten years. Yes GDP growth rate has improved in the short term but remains relatively steady  at ~2-3% since the recession in 2008, but our reliance on other countries for trade goods is a perilous position given the foreign policy concerns.

Just trying to understand another perspective.

Quote

The US trade deficit widened to USD 59.8 billion in December of 2018 from an upwardly revised USD 50.3 billion in the previous month and compared with market expectations of a USD 57.9 billion gap. It is the largest deficit since October of 2008 as exports declined for the third month and imports recovered. In 2018, the country's trade gap widened to a 10-year high, with the goods gap with China jumping to a record high despite tariffs on USD 250 billion worth of Chinese imports. Balance of Trade in the United States averaged -14602.55 USD Million from 1950 until 2018

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

[Scottysabres]

33 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

I'm interested in understanding why you give the Economics aspect an A when we have the largest trade deficit in ten years. Yes GDP growth rate has improved in the short term but remains relatively steady  at ~2-3% since the recession in 2008, but our reliance on other countries for trade goods is a perilous position given the foreign policy concerns.

Just trying to understand another perspective.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

Job creation is the #1 priority in any long term corrections to the trade deficit imo. You have to give innovation a starting point, and that is job creation. Yes it is true the deficit adjustments aren't where I'd like them to be, however, job growth across the board is up, way up. I am keenly aware it's going to take decades to level the playing field, this is the first Executive administration to do so in my lifetime imo.

[LGR4GM]

23 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

Job creation is the #1 priority in any long term corrections to the trade deficit imo. You have to give innovation a starting point, and that is job creation. Yes it is true the deficit adjustments aren't where I'd like them to be, however, job growth across the board is up, way up. I am keenly aware it's going to take decades to level the playing field, this is the first Executive administration to do so in my lifetime imo.

Survey says! Bulls###. The economy, the job growth, all of it, is just a continuation of what Obama started in late 2009. There is no "way up". It is just a continuation. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/30/two-charts-show-trumps-job-gains-are-just-a-continuation-from-obamas-presidency/#2ba917301af3

Quote

President Trump started with a distinct advantage with a workforce of 145.7 million, 9% larger than when President Obama took office. If the workforce were to only grow by 2%, that would add just over 2.9 million jobs a year or 243,000 per month. Over the course of 10 years, there would be over 29 million jobs added.

Additionally, over President Obama’s last six and five years in office after the economy had recovered from the Great Recession, the average employment gains were 2.42 and 2.48 million jobs per year. Pretty much on track to add 25 million over 10 years. So it appears that Trump can reach his 25 million job growth goal even if the economy continued to grow at the pace under Obama .

Trump’s through September:

• 2017: 182,000 per month or 2.19 million
• Through September 2018: 208,000 per month or 2.5 million run rate

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Scottysabres]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Survey says! Bulls###. The economy, the job growth, all of it, is just a continuation of what Obama started in late 2009. There is no "way up". It is just a continuation. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/30/two-charts-show-trumps-job-gains-are-just-a-continuation-from-obamas-presidency/#2ba917301af3

 

I've read this, and it is a blatant falsehood. The economy did not, in point of fact, recover under Obama. All he did was turn on the printing presses and flood the economy with cash. Which is directly shown in both the annual deficits and 7 year, 10 trillion dollar national debt explosion. Whether you like it or not, actual "new job creation" began when Obama left office.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Scottysabres said:

I've read this, and it is a blatant falsehood. The economy did not, in point of fact, recover under Obama. 1) All he did was turn on the printing presses and flood the economy with cash. Which is directly shown in 2) both the annual deficits and 3) 7 year, 10 trillion dollar national debt explosion. Whether you like it or not, 4) actual "new job creation" began when Obama left office.

It is a blatant falsehood? How in the world is actual numbers of jobs a blatant falsehood? 

To the bolded,

1) No he didn't. If he had we would have witnessed stagflation which is what happened in Venezuela. You can't flood any economy with cash because that destabilizes the value of that currency. The US Government did pump money into the economy but it didn't just print money. This brings us to part 2. 

2) Let's start with deficit as % of GDP because that normalizes the number. In 2009, it was 9.8% which was the height of the stimulus. So there you are correct, Obama did balloon the deficit.  By 2016 the deficit had come down to 3.1% and under Trump it currently sits at 4.0% for 2018. This will go up according to most predictions due to the wealthy tax break that Trump and Republicans passed. It should hover around 4.1% annually. This is according to the CBO. The deficit was going down to what it was under George Bush before Trump took office. This was because the stimulus and other bills to avoid a depression were either done and over or the money was already back in the economy so we didn't spend as much. So the annual deficit has not gone down under Trump but gone up by about 1%. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54918 

3) Now on to debt which is different then the deficit. Obama did expand the debt during the first 2 years of his tenure. This was mainly through the Simulus package and coupled with lower federal income tax returns due to not only tax cuts but also the great recession which he inherited to start his presidency. Obama added 74% to the debt, Bush added 101% to the debt. Either way it has gone up substantially. Obama took the debt from 10.6 to 19.9 trillion. Trump with the tax cuts he gave up and the increase in spending has also increased the debt. It stands over 22 trillion right now. So he has not reduced the national debt at all. In fact under current laws the debt held is expected to increase significantly in the next 30 years without a major correction. I think the debt gdp ratio here is very important to look at. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

So if we want to talk about blatant falsehoods we should probably start with your statements. Number 1 is just a lie the way it is worded. #2 is a falsehood because it does not take into account the recession, the steps taken to end it, or the return to a Bush era level of deficit before Trump took office. #3 is much more complicated. Bush, Obama and Trump have all done the same thing. Bush increased the debt 101%, Obama 78% and Trump it remains to be seen. All of these are problematic. Suggesting however that Donald is actually helping decrease the debt is false. The debt increase coupled with the deficit would balloon over the next 30 years under the current laws thanks in large part to an increase in spending and a decrease is taxes collected. 

4) You will notice that I left the last bolded part out to this point. What does this mean? I have given you direct evidence that Jobs were added to the economy starting in late 2009 and continuing through 2018. Here's the bureau of labor stats to prove it https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001?output_view=net_1mth Here's another Forbes article saying that it basically hasn't gone way up at all since Trump https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/12/08/trumps-tax-cuts-havent-spiked-job-growth/#5564bda42df9 

Trump has grown the deficit, continued the debt balloon at a faster pace, and basically kept job growth the same. Those are the facts. 

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Scottysabres]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

It is a blatant falsehood? How in the world is actual numbers of jobs a blatant falsehood? 

To the bolded,

1) No he didn't. If he had we would have witnessed stagflation which is what happened in Venezuela. You can't flood any economy with cash because that destabilizes the value of that currency. The US Government did pump money into the economy but it didn't just print money. This brings us to part 2. 

2) Let's start with deficit as % of GDP because that normalizes the number. In 2009, it was 9.8% which was the height of the stimulus. So there you are correct, Obama did balloon the deficit.  By 2016 the deficit had come down to 3.1% and under Trump it currently sits at 4.0% for 2018. This will go up according to most predictions due to the wealthy tax break that Trump and Republicans passed. It should hover around 4.1% annually. This is according to the CBO. The deficit was going down to what it was under George Bush before Trump took office. This was because the stimulus and other bills to avoid a depression were either done and over or the money was already back in the economy so we didn't spend as much. So the annual deficit has not gone down under Trump but gone up by about 1%. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54918 

3) Now on to debt which is different then the deficit. Obama did expand the debt during the first 2 years of his tenure. This was mainly through the Simulus package and coupled with lower federal income tax returns due to not only tax cuts but also the great recession which he inherited to start his presidency. Obama added 74% to the debt, Bush added 101% to the debt. Either way it has gone up substantially. Obama took the debt from 10.6 to 19.9 trillion. Trump with the tax cuts he gave up and the increase in spending has also increased the debt. It stands over 22 trillion right now. So he has not reduced the national debt at all. In fact under current laws the debt held is expected to increase significantly in the next 30 years without a major correction. I think the debt gdp ratio here is very important to look at. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

So if we want to talk about blatant falsehoods we should probably start with your statements. Number 1 is just a lie the way it is worded. #2 is a falsehood because it does not take into account the recession, the steps taken to end it, or the return to a Bush era level of deficit before Trump took office. #3 is much more complicated. Bush, Obama and Trump have all done the same thing. Bush increased the debt 101%, Obama 78% and Trump it remains to be seen. All of these are problematic. Suggesting however that Donald is actually helping decrease the debt is false. The debt increase coupled with the deficit would balloon over the next 30 years under the current laws thanks in large part to an increase in spending and a decrease is taxes collected. 

4) You will notice that I left the last bolded part out to this point. What does this mean? I have given you direct evidence that Jobs were added to the economy starting in late 2009 and continuing through 2018. Here's the bureau of labor stats to prove it https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001?output_view=net_1mth Here's another Forbes article saying that it basically hasn't gone way up at all since Trump https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/12/08/trumps-tax-cuts-havent-spiked-job-growth/#5564bda42df9 

Trump has grown the deficit, continued the debt balloon at a faster pace, and basically kept job growth the same. Those are the facts. 

 

No, it isn't. Under the Obama administration the nation debt rose from just under 8.9 trillion dollars in November of 2008 to just under 18.6 trillion dollars in November of 2016.

He delivered year over year trillion dollar budgets for 5 of his 8 years in office. He falsly claimed to the American People the ACA was financially neutral, it was in fact, not. He continued the QE programs initiated by the Bush administration, wrote off 100's of billions in bank loses, and did all of this borrowing from my grandchildren and great grandchildren. He did nothing to add jobs, he heavily regulated as a matter of fact costing a net job loss in many industries. He completely failed to protect the American worker attempting to instill new trade deals based on American job losses. This really happened, I watched it happen nation wide. Work slowed, in some cases vanished. I have traveled extensively nation wide, I am sorry if your elitist writings out of New York City or Washington D.C. don't subscribe to the realities in a majority of the nation. But that's on you, for not actually going out there and taking a look at what was actually happening.

And while I'm no Trump fan, I do applaud his approach in stabilizing the job market. Many I know are back to work, and it isn't because of Obama.

[SwampD]

36 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

No, it isn't. Under the Obama administration the nation debt rose from just under 8.9 trillion dollars in November of 2008 to just under 18.6 trillion dollars in November of 2016.

He delivered year over year trillion dollar budgets for 5 of his 8 years in office. He falsly claimed to the American People the ACA was financially neutral, it was in fact, not. He continued the QE programs initiated by the Bush administration, wrote off 100's of billions in bank loses, and did all of this borrowing from my grandchildren and great grandchildren. He did nothing to add jobs, he heavily regulated as a matter of fact costing a net job loss in many industries. He completely failed to protect the American worker attempting to instill new trade deals based on American job losses. This really happened, I watched it happen nation wide. Work slowed, in some cases vanished. I have traveled extensively nation wide, I am sorry if your elitist writings out of New York City or Washington D.C. don't subscribe to the realities in a majority of the nation. But that's on you, for not actually going out there and taking a look at what was actually happening.

And while I'm no Trump fan, I do applaud his approach in stabilizing the job market. Many I know are back to work, and it isn't because of Obama.

Not much of this actually happened.

[Weave]

6 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

I've read this, and it is a blatant falsehood. The economy did not, in point of fact, recover under Obama. All he did was turn on the printing presses and flood the economy with cash. Which is directly shown in both the annual deficits and 7 year, 10 trillion dollar national debt explosion. Whether you like it or not, actual "new job creation" began when Obama left office.

I'd like to see that data that shows the economy and employment not recovering and growing during the Obama administration.  That claim counters everything I've seen.  You'll need to back that one up with sources.

Yes, deficit spending increased under Obama.  Deficit spending is understood by economists everywhere as the correct response to a recession.  He did inherit a recession from Bush.  And he handed over a healthy economy to Trump by all measures I've ever seen.

Deficit spending during a healthy economy..... now that is a response that makes no economic sense.

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

No, it isn't. 2) Under the Obama administration the nation debt rose from just under 8.9 trillion dollars in November of 2008 to just under 18.6 trillion dollars in November of 2016.

He delivered year over year trillion dollar budgets for 5 of his 8 years in office. 3) He falsly claimed to the American People the ACA was financially neutral, it was in fact, not. He continued the QE programs initiated by the Bush administration, wrote off 100's of billions in bank loses, and did all of this borrowing from my grandchildren and great grandchildren. 4) He did nothing to add jobs, he heavily regulated as a matter of fact costing a net job loss in many industries. He completely failed to protect the American worker attempting to instill new trade deals based on American job losses. This really happened, I watched it happen nation wide. Work slowed, in some cases vanished. I have traveled extensively nation wide, 1) I am sorry if your elitist writings out of New York City or Washington D.C. don't subscribe to the realities in a majority of the nation. But that's on you, for not actually going out there and taking a look at what was actually happening.

5) And while I'm no Trump fan, I do applaud his approach in stabilizing the job market. 6) Many I know are back to work, and it isn't because of Obama.

1) This actually made me laugh, so thanks for that. New York City, lol. 

2) I literally told you the debt went up. I acknowledged it. It is still going up, at a higher rate because Donald cut taxes but increased spending. It is now above 22 trillion. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/budget-deficit-trillion.html 

3) This is both true and false. The ACA initially did add to the debt but the CBO estimated that it would also save money over time compared to what was in place prior. So yes Obama was wrong initially but he could be right in the long run, still lied though. Personally the ACA at this stage has been crippled by what the Republican Majority did in the last 2 years. That's fine but you have to replace it with something. We spend more of our GDP on healthcare for worse health outcomes then almost every other modern country in the world. The system is horribly bloated. 

4) I have already disproved this. I gave you evidence from multiple places showing that this is wrong. After the economy bottomed out in 2009, the Obama administration continually added jobs. The trend has continued under trump according to all the data we have, this has not increased but remained roughly constant. I don't have to go anywhere and ask anyone. I could go to West Virginia and have a very different impression than if I went to Charlotte. One place is losing jobs the other is gaining jobs. Actually I should say Atlanta versus Alabama perhaps. 

5) He hasn't stabilized anything. There is actual evidence that he is destabilizing things with the tariffs he put in. Sure, specific industries are benefiting but the economy as a whole is slightly less stable. Now that could be short term or a longer term issue. Really depends on the tariffs and their duration. 

6) So you are using anecdotal evidence. People you know are benefiting does not mean that all people are benefiting. Assuming that is the case... well, that's elitist. 

[Eleven]

On 3/9/2019 at 2:43 PM, SABRES 0311 said:

Interesting. Please elaborate. If you are going the direction I think you are I’m all ears.

Should be fairly obvious; using taxes to line the pockets of the powerful is a younger idea than the idea of tax itself by about three hours.

If we want just one pre-baby boomer example in the US, there's the Teapot Dome scandal.

[Scottysabres]

The "Big NothingBurger" has landed.

No new indictments from Mueller. No indictments on collusion, 0. A lot of process indictments though. The one who really got screwed in all of this is Flynn, for lying, he actually did nothing wrong outside of one lie. But, a lie is a lie.

Nope, the larger issue here is still at play, and, as a Libertarian, I find myself intrigued by what is sure to happen next, the investigation in to the FISA warrant, the Obama administration and the Democrat National Committee's involvement in setting up what is looking more and more like an attempted Coup d'état of a duly elected sitting President. Hate it if you wish, but there is definitely enough factual information out there now from text messages and documents along with a boat load of suspicious behavior to more than warrant a full blown investigation in to a slew of Democrats, both past and present, including former President Obama and Clinton. Should make for some further interesting times ahead.

In the mean time, I found this little tid bit floating about that is looking more and more realistic everyday...…………….enjoy...….

The Reality of the Situation:
Modern Democrat Party.....

1. Abolish citizens rights to bare arms
2. Abolish free speech unless it tows the party line
3. Make an ethnic or racial group the enemy of the people (Caucasian males)
4. Have the governing bodies control every service to the citizens
5. Remove the ability of the citizens to impact who represents them (abolishing the electoral college effectively negates 40 states ability to have a say at the Executive Branch)
6. Crush the majority religion, making it obsolete
7. Take over public schools and universities, pushing one ideology on the young (Hitler Youth)
8. Infaltrate governing agencies to attempt to crush political opponents from the inside
9. Attempt to take over the judiciary to secure your ideology as the only one acceptable

Now, take a look at the Nazi Party, Germany, circa 1928 - 1945

If your a citizen patriot, you should be deeply concerned.

If your a Caucasian male citizen, you should already be arming yourself and your family.

[Weave]

You lost me at "bare".  Noone is banning sleeveless shirts.

Regarding the "nothingburger".  Regardless of your thoughts on Trump, this was nothing but good news.  It means there wasn''t a foreign government working with a candidate to fix an election.  That is good news.  Nothing good could have come from a finding that there was collusion.

What I'd like to see now is Donald Trump stand up and acknowledge the neutrality and professionalism of that investigation.

[Scottysabres]

9 minutes ago, Weave said:

You lost me at "bare".  Noone is banning sleeveless shirts.

Regarding the "nothingburger".  Regardless of your thoughts on Trump, this was nothing but good news.  It means there wasn''t a foreign government working with a candidate to fix an election.  That is good news.  Nothing good could have come from a finding that there was collusion.

What I'd like to see now is Donald Trump stand up and acknowledge the neutrality and professionalism of that investigation.

An investigation started on a fake dossier? While I'm no fan outside of economics of the guy, I see no reason why he should have acknowledged anything about this investigation. But yes, I agree on the non-foreign influence on him. Although, It is apparent more than a couple nations around the globe insert themselves via ads, back door deals and so on to get involved, most likely primarily funneling money to a campaign or campaigns. Most likely considered good business to do so.

But I did notice you did not address the 8,000,000 pound gorilla in the room, that of the Democrat Party, it's operatives, and a prior Democrat Executive Administration actively subverting the Constitution in an effort to remove a duly elected sitting President. The Page and Strozek texts, along with McCabe's open admission are factual on the situation. And 2 of those 3 have already said the orders to stand down on Hillary Clinton came from AG Loretta Lynch, President Obama's left hand individual in the administration, even after recommendations to file charges were voiced. Page is even on record now saying the White House knew about the origins of the dossier as well as Lynch's order to the FBI not to pursue Clinton any further.

There can be little doubt now that a full blown investigation is more than warranted. At the very least it looks like there was an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States via the Executive Branch in an attempt to install a Democrat Oligarchy. That much is at least more than in the realm of possibilities now.

[SABRES 0311]

You are about to get lit up like Christmas tree.  Either that or get called a troll like I did. I’m with you though. President Kennedy said it would/is happening by covert means and he was right. 

Some say we use to agree on the end point but disagree on the path. We are seeing the true end point progressives want. 

1. We maintain 2A not for hunting but to protect ourselves from what we fought against in the Revolutionary War.

32 minutes ago, Weave said:

You lost me at "bare".  Noone is banning sleeveless shirts.

Regarding the "nothingburger".  Regardless of your thoughts on Trump, this was nothing but good news.  It means there wasn''t a foreign government working with a candidate to fix an election.  That is good news.  Nothing good could have come from a finding that there was collusion.

What I'd like to see now is Donald Trump stand up and acknowledge the neutrality and professionalism of that investigation.

What neutrality and professionalism? You mean FISA warrants based on a dossier created by a foreign intel officer funded by a U.S. candidate via Fusion GPS? Or do you mean the texts between two members of that investigative team which demonstrated lack of professionalism and politicization? 

[Scottysabres]

11 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

You are about to get lit up like Christmas tree.  Either that or get called a troll like I did. I’m with you though. President Kennedy said it would/is happening by covert means and he was right. 

Some say we use to agree on the end point but disagree on the path. We are seeing the true end point progressives want. 

1. We maintain 2A not for hunting but to protect ourselves from what we fought against in the Revolutionary War.

What neutrality and professionalism? You mean FISA warrants based on a dossier created by a foreign intel officer funded by a U.S. candidate via Fusion GPS? Or do you mean the texts between two members of that investigative team which demonstrated lack of professionalism and politicization? 

As I said a while back, I don't normally publicize the political nature of myself. I'm a Libertarian, so the Constitution above all else in my beliefs, if for no other reason then this, without abiding by it we end up no different than a tin pot despot. But I don't concern myself with the emotions of others in political speak per say, this is the land of the free after all, everyone should speak their minds freely, even if emotional.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Scottysabres said:

As I said a while back, I don't normally publicize the political nature of myself. I'm a Libertarian, so the Constitution above all else in my beliefs, if for no other reason then this, without abiding by it we end up no different than a tin pot despot. But I don't concern myself with the emotions of others in political speak per say, this is the land of the free after all, everyone should speak their minds freely, even if emotional.

You may call yourself a Libertarian, but there is nothing in your posting history here that suggests you even understand the Libertarian platform. 

But then again, who am I to question how anyone identifies, regardless of how you appear?   

[Scottysabres]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

You may call yourself a Libertarian, but there is nothing in your posting history here that suggests you even understand the Libertarian platform. 

But then again, who am I to question how anyone identifies, regardless of how you appear?   

Fair enough.

[SwampD]

Wait a minute! Are the Dems really trying to build a wall to keep white males out of the country?

I hadn’t heard that.

[SABRES 0311]

51 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Wait a minute! Are the Dems really trying to build a wall to keep white males out of the country?

I hadn’t heard that.

I don't think that was in the Mueller Report. If it is its probably in the section about late term abortions, scary guns and how the world will end in 12 years due to climate change. The report is likely classified so the only ones who have seen it are Hillary Clinton and everyone who has gained access to her unsecure server. But hey Orange Man bad and all that jazz.   

[SwampD]

17 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I don't think that was in the Mueller Report. If it is its probably in the section about late term abortions, scary guns and how the world will end in 12 years due to climate change. The report is likely classified so the only ones who have seen it are Hillary Clinton and everyone who has gained access to her unsecure server. But hey Orange Man bad and all that jazz.   

I’m a Dem. I have guns. Nobody is taking them.

Enough with the hyperbole about what you think “those other guys” want. @Scottysabres post was complete nonsense.

Any post that mentions Nazi Germany and Hitler Youth (for some unknown reason) is trolling.

And I am not convinced yet that Trump’s economic policies aren’t harmful to the country. I know that when I don’t have money I go into debt. When I’m making more is when I pay it back. Now was not the time for a tax cut.

Edited March 25, 2019 by SwampD

[Scottysabres]

36 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I’m a Dem. I have guns. Nobody is taking them.

Enough with the hyperbole about what you think “those other guys” want. @Scottysabres post was complete nonsense.

Any post that mentions Nazi Germany and Hitler Youth (for some unknown reason) is trolling.

And I am not convinced yet that Trump’s economic policies aren’t harmful to the country. I know that when I don’t have money I go into debt. When I’m making more is when I pay it back. Now was not the time for a tax cut.

I didn't write it, I copied and pasted it. But don't sit there and say it doesn't have similarities to what Liberal Democrats have done.

Hell, my dads a retired teacher, 45 years he did, and he'll tell you straight out liberals are currently and have been for quite some time now pushing their ideology in public schools as well as well doxumented in collegiate America.

As for guns, your ridiculous if you cannot acknowledge Democrats have been after them for at least 25 years now. The governor of this state has already put a dent in ownership and there are calls from the party you support for complete ban of ownership.

The Democrat party is a very real danger to the Constitution. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that, well that's up to you. I came to terms with it a long time ago, and the Republicans aren't much better, but at least with them the Bill of Rights remains intact.

[SABRES 0311]

29 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I’m a Dem. I have guns. Nobody is taking them.

Enough with the hyperbole about what you think “those other guys” want. @Scottysabres post was complete nonsense.

Any post that mentions Nazi Germany and Hitler Youth (for some unknown reason) is trolling.

And I am not convinced yet that Trump’s economic policies aren’t harmful to the country. I know that when I don’t have money I go into debt. When I’m making more is when I pay it back. Now was not the time for a tax cut.

Who are you to judge how the guy explains his comparisons? You don’t like it so you just dismiss it as trolling. As far as I go I’ll say what I want within the confines of the site concerning what I see. 

@Scottysabres was saying the tactics employed by elements of the left are reminiscent of what Hitler did. IMO he is right to an extent. Why is it the left can call people bigots, homophobes, Islamaphobes and all kinds of garbage but when it goes the other way you deem it trolling? Probably because your interpretation is different which is good because it sparks debate. But that too goes both ways. Something elements of the left have forgotten.

 

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, Scottysabres said:

I didn't write it, I copied and pasted it. But don't sit there and say it doesn't have similarities to what Liberal Democrats have done.

Hell, my dads a retired teacher, 45 years he did, and he'll tell you straight out liberals are currently and have been for quite some time now pushing their ideology in public schools as well as well doxumented in collegiate America.

As for guns, your ridiculous if you cannot acknowledge Democrats have been after them for at least 25 years now. The governor of this state has already put a dent in ownership and there are calls from the party you support for complete ban of ownership.

The Democrat party is a very real danger to the Constitution. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that, well that's up to you. I came to terms with it a long time ago, and the Republicans aren't much better, but at least with them the Bill of Rights remains intact.

It also has similarities to what the president has done and is doing. If you don't see that then we may as well not continue.

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Who are you to judge how the guy explains his comparisons? You don’t like it so you just dismiss it as trolling. As far as I go I’ll say what I want within the confines of the site concerning what I see. 

@Scottysabres was saying the tactics employed by elements of the left are reminiscent of what Hitler did. IMO he is right to an extent. Why is it the left can call people bigots, homophobes, Islamaphobes and all kinds of garbage but when it goes the other way you deem it trolling? Probably because your interpretation is different which is good because it sparks debate. But that too goes both ways. Something elements of the left have forgotten.

 

You mean like blaming outsiders for our problems?

All this is comically ironic knowing that the head of the American Nazi Party actually supported Trump.

JFC, what are white males so afraid of? 

[SABRES 0311]

26 minutes ago, SwampD said:

It also has similarities to what the president has done and is doing. If you don't see that then we may as well not continue.

You mean like blaming outsiders for our problems?

All this is comically ironic knowing that the head of the American Nazi Party actually supported Trump.

JFC, what are white males so afraid of? 

Yes like blaming some Russian social media accounts for changing the election. So on one hand they say Americans are too stupid to not allow themselves to be influenced by foreign propaganda. At the same time they call for an end to the Electoral College. If the American people are so easily influenced why do they want the popular vote to decide? 

So what you are saying is if a bad guy supports someone they must share the same values. HRC was friends with Robert Byrd and viewed Saul Alinsky as a mentor. Obama’s supposed preacher said GD America. Both let four Americans die in Libya when U.S. forces were ready to go. 

Not sure what it is I said that makes you think I’m a scared white guy. Once again the left using the race card when someone else doesn’t agree with their POV. Maybe I should concede and vote Kamala in 2020. Then you won’t accuse me or others of being scared of people who aren’t white. 

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Yes like blaming some Russian social media accounts for changing the election. So on one hand they say Americans are too stupid to not allow themselves to be influenced by foreign propaganda. At the same time they call for an end to the Electoral College. If the American people are so easily influenced why do they want the popular vote to decide? 

So what you are saying is if a bad guy supports someone they must share the same values. HRC was friends with Robert Byrd and viewed Saul Alinsky as a mentor. Obama’s supposed preacher said GD America. Both let four Americans die in Libya when U.S. forces were ready to go. 

Not sure what it is I said that makes you think I’m a scared white guy. Once again the left using the race card when someone else doesn’t agree with their POV. Maybe I should concede and vote Kamala in 2020. Then you won’t accuse me or others of being scared of people who aren’t white. 

You know HRC lost and Obama isn’t president anymore, right? Why do you keep bringing them up. They have nothing to do with the politics of today.