• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

President Donald J. Trump

Started by The General, February 11, 2011, 01:33:34 AM

Lord Grantham

Quote from: Gd5150 on November 13, 2017, 09:41:04 AM

Your hatred of Trump has made you sound naive.


So does your blind devotion.

Swishypants

Quote from: Lord Grantham on November 13, 2017, 09:46:35 AM
So does your blind devotion.

Let me get this straight. The Kenyan never produced a legitimate birth certificate. (They didn't call them African Americans in 1961, and his name wasn't Barack Obama then either, also photoshop tags are all over the copy put online) And you thought Hillary was actually a good candidate?

PaulAtreides

Quote from: Lord Grantham on November 13, 2017, 09:46:35 AM
So does your blind devotion.

Trumpers, your blind devotion leads to ignorance.  Take the tax bill for instance. Under either the current House or Senate bill, some middle income taxpayers will have to pay more. So I suggest that you run your own personal numbers to see the result for you.  When administration officials are asked about it, they immediately pivot and suggest that this tax "reform" will have so many other benefits (e.g. file your taxes on a postcard - a lie) that if some middle income people have to pay more that that's OK.  They further pivot to the "argument" that a lower corporate tax will result in higher wages.  The only poll on the subect seems to suggest that large corporations will pay higher dividends or buy back shares - no one is on the record suggesting that they will increase wages. So unless you already file on 1040EZ, there's a good chance Republicans and going to fuck you over in favor of lower corporate taxes. But, Trumpers, I realize your blind devotion to Donny means you really don't care.  Oh, and BTW, let's hope that pervert Roy Moore ends up in one of sheriff Joe's prison camps in a tent full of gay guys who think he's real purty. 

136 or 142

Quote from: PaulAtreides on November 13, 2017, 10:11:20 AM
Trumpers, your blind devotion leads to ignorance.  Take the tax bill for instance. Under either the current House or Senate bill, some middle income taxpayers will have to pay more. So I suggest that you run your own personal numbers to see the result for you.  When administration officials are asked about it, they immediately pivot and suggest that this tax "reform" will have so many other benefits (e.g. file your taxes on a postcard - a lie) that if some middle income people have to pay more that that's OK.  They further pivot to the "argument" that a lower corporate tax will result in higher wages.  The only poll on the subect seems to suggest that large corporations will pay higher dividends or buy back shares - no one is on the record suggesting that they will increase wages. So unless you already file on 1040EZ, there's a good chance Republicans and going to fuck you over in favor of lower corporate taxes. But, Trumpers, I realize your blind devotion to Donny means you really don't care.  Oh, and BTW, let's hope that pervert Roy Moore ends up in one of sheriff Joe's prison camps in a tent full of gay guys who think he's real purty.

https://twitter.com/EJDionne/status/930080835763519488

Quote from: Gd5150 on November 13, 2017, 09:41:04 AM
These people would have run with their dick between their legs as soon as the DNC/Media unleashed the tsunami of bs when they became the nominee. Just like Mccain and Romney did. They’re all the same. That’s why they lost and why Trump won. The country didn’t need, and didn’t wasn’t another worthless pussy in the White House. Just finished 8 years of that.

Your hatred of Trump has made you sound naive.

McCain and Romney lost because they ran shitty campaigns overall, and because they didn't run on conservative principles.  Which made sense because they are not conservatives.  You have no way of knowing how anyone who didn't run would have campaigned. 

The pollsters who said none of these people could win, were the same pollsters who also said Trump couldn't win.


The fake argument has gone something like this:

- Only ''moderates'' (like McCain and Romney) can win the general election
- All Rs in DC are the same - a bunch of McCain and Romney-like Rinos
- Because the ''moderate'' Rinos keep losing elections, and because all the DC Rs are the same, we need to choose Donald Trump in 2016 - ''only he can win''

None of this was ever actually true.  Trump won because he ran on a conservative platform.  I believe the other conservatives would have run stronger than Trump had they also run on immigration, border control, and Obamacare repeal, and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't have.  And they certainly would be running a more competent White House now.


The sad fact is the Electoral College has turned against any Republican.  Florida is now going from a tossup state to a blue state with the Puerto Ricans moving there after the hurricane.  As awful of a candidate as Hilary was, she won the popular vote and would have won Michigan and Wisconsin, and probably Pennsylvania if she had campaigned there, which would have given her the Electoral votes needed to win. 

Trump was no wildly popular candidate.  2016 will go down as a year of lousy choices.  There was no great groundswell for Trump, a core of drones, and a bunch of people voting against Hilary.  Since the election he's gone out of his way to alienate everyone not part of his 20% of the country core group.  How do you think that plays out in the 2018 by-year elections?  The 2020 elections if the Ds run someone who's not detestable, corrupt, or insane? 

Trump isn't saving the only alternative to the ''progressives'', he's destroying them




Gd5150

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 10:17:27 AM
McCain and Romney lost because they ran shitty campaigns overall, and because they didn't run on conservative principles.  Which made sense because they are not conservatives.  You have no way of knowing how anyone who didn't run would have campaigned. 

The pollsters who said none of these people could win, were the same pollsters who also said Trump couldn't win.


The fake argument has gone something like this:

- Only ''moderates'' (like McCain and Romney) can win the general election
- All Rs in DC are the same - a bunch of McCain and Romney-like Rinos
- Because the ''moderate'' Rinos keep losing elections, and because all the DC Rs are the same, we need to choose Donald Trump in 2016 - ''only he can win''

None of this was ever actually true.  Trump won because he ran on a conservative platform.  I believe the other conservatives would have run stronger than Trump had they also run on immigration, border control, and Obamacare repeal, and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't have.  And they certainly would be running a more competent White House now.


The sad fact is the Electoral College has turned against any Republican.  Florida is now going from a tossup state to a blue state with the Puerto Ricans moving there after the hurricane.  As awful of a candidate as Hilary was, she won the popular vote and would have won Michigan and Wisconsin, and probably Pennsylvania if she had campaigned there, which would have given her the Electoral votes needed to win. 

Trump was no wildly popular candidate.  2016 will go down as a year of lousy choices.  There was no great groundswell for Trump, a core of drones, and a bunch of people voting against Hilary.  Since the election he's gone out of his way to alienate everyone not part of his 20% of the country core group.  How do you think that plays out in the 2018 by-year elections?  The 2020 elections if the Ds run someone who's not detestable, corrupt, or insane? 

Trump isn't saving the only alternative to the ''progressives'', he's destroying them
They would’ve lost to the Hillary machine.

One bit of hope is the election math favors the Republicans at the House district level, and to a somewhat lesser extent at the Senate level. 

The House seats are gerrymandered so it would take a tsunami for the Rs to lose it, and the Ds are defending more Senate seats and have more weak seats in play.  Most of middle America is lined up against the Left, with large concentrations of D support in the large cities.  But if things continue in the upcoming year as they went this year. a wipeout is very possible.  A gerrymander doesn't work against a landslide.  We need significant agenda legislation passed, or enough nominal Republican voters will stay home, which would give the Ds control of one or both Houses.  An unlikable president who routinely insults those whose support he needs is not a plus.

All those people he attacks - guess what, they have supporters too.  People who like them.  When Trump attacks some Senator, the people in that state who like their Senator and have supported him or her feel attacked as well. 

Donald Trump is unwise, at best.  An unserious buffoon with no vision or understanding of anything other than himself. 

Quote from: Gd5150 on November 13, 2017, 10:26:52 AM
They would’ve lost to the Hillary machine.

I obviously don't believe that.  Convince me.

And please bring something more than McCain and Romney lost and everyone else on the list is just like them.  Some are similiar, others aren't. 

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 10:34:23 AM
...  An unlikable president...

This can't be overstated.  I keep hearing about his ''charisma''. 

It may be just me, but the guy makes me cringe.  As a person, and as a speaker.  I'm not seeing ''charisma''.  His popularity for decades has been due to his wealth, and his over the top blustering.  The money I get.  That always has ''charisma'' - that isn't Trump the person, it's just his money.  As far as the blustering, I guess that's entertaining to some - the backward baseball cap wearing idiots and similiar.  It isn't attractive to most people, and it certainly isn't presidential.  And it's not the way to draw support and get things done from people whose vote one needs to pass legislation.

Yeah wealth is always popular.  The rich and famous always have an admiring crowd.  Same with any politician, certainly any president.  But Donald Trump the person, charismatic?  Really? 

Jackstar

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 10:17:27 AM
Trump won because


Effects rarely have single causes.

P.S.: You argue like a child would.

Gd5150

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 10:37:08 AM
I obviously don't believe that.  Convince me

No thanks. Convince me they would’ve inspired the same support as Trump. They won’t even fight to overturn Obatardcare. You think they would’ve fought to beat Hillary? It would’ve been the same ol same ol Republican establishment reach across the isle while the depnokkkrats nail them in the keister.

Curious what you think about the new tax turd. It’s an establishment special. Funny seeing the mindless lemmings here gloat over the fact it raises taxes. They should be loving it but we already know they’re too stupid to think for themselves. There’s still hope for you, but it is diminishing. Your answer here could be important, choose wisely.


Jackstar

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 10:49:17 AM
Donald Trump the person, charismatic?  Really?




I don't get how you imagine that anyone might take you seriously--really.

Quote from: Jackstar on November 13, 2017, 10:51:04 AM

Effects rarely have single causes.

P.S.: You argue like a child would.

These aren't really arguments.  I'm explaining reality

Quote from: Gd5150 on November 13, 2017, 10:52:28 AM
No thanks. Convince me they would’ve inspired the same support as Trump. They won’t even fight to overturn Obatardcare. You think they would’ve fought to beat Hillary? It would’ve been the same ol same ol Republican establishment reach across the isle while the depnokkkrats nail them in the keister...

Yeah, you said all that.  And I refuted it. 

Just one example:  Ted Cruz went against his party and almost singlehandedly held up the budget continuing resolution, the infamous ''shutting down the government'' when the Rs could have put an end to Obamacare because they controlled the House.  His filibuster went on for days, but the rest of them caved under attack from the fake news media.  Cruz let it go when there was no support and he would eventually lose anyway.

Does that sound like McCain or Romney to you?  Are all Rs in DC really just all the same?

Not arguing Cruz should have been the nominee, only that there were plenty on that list different and better than Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney.  They aren't all ''the same'', and wouldn't all run the same campaign.   


Quote from: Jackstar on November 13, 2017, 10:55:31 AM
I don't get how you imagine that anyone might take you seriously--really.

I thought we discussed this, and you were going to


Jackstar

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 11:05:04 AM
Just one example:  Ted Cruz went against his party

massive rolleyes

What's next from you--a deep analysis of the ongoing struggle between Ronald McDonald and The Hamburglar?



Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 11:09:22 AM
I thought we discussed this, and you were going to
See above, re: arguing like a child.

Quote from: Gd5150 on November 13, 2017, 10:52:28 AM
No thanks. Convince me they would’ve inspired the same support as Trump...

What support for Trump?  He didn't even win a majority of votes in the primaries.  Most Republican primary voters wanted someone else.

Sure, he got support from people who typically don't vote, and maybe from people who typically vote Democrat.  But he drove plenty of people away too.  We have no way to quantify any of this - I'mcertainly not going to trust any fake polling data - but it was very clear that most people wanted another choice, with most Ds were voting against Trump, and most Rs were voting against Hilary.  Relatively few were voting FOR either.

Quote from: Jackstar on November 13, 2017, 11:15:03 AM
massive rolleyes

What's next from you--a deep analysis of the ongoing struggle between Ronald McDonald and The Hamburglar?


See above, re: arguing like a child.


Well GD, the resident conspiracy kook is with you.


Dr. MD MD

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 10:17:27 AM
McCain and Romney lost because they ran shitty campaigns overall, and because they didn't run on conservative principles.  Which made sense because they are not conservatives.  You have no way of knowing how anyone who didn't run would have campaigned. 

The pollsters who said none of these people could win, were the same pollsters who also said Trump couldn't win.


The fake argument has gone something like this:

- Only ''moderates'' (like McCain and Romney) can win the general election
- All Rs in DC are the same - a bunch of McCain and Romney-like Rinos
- Because the ''moderate'' Rinos keep losing elections, and because all the DC Rs are the same, we need to choose Donald Trump in 2016 - ''only he can win''

None of this was ever actually true.  Trump won because he ran on a conservative platform.  I believe the other conservatives would have run stronger than Trump had they also run on immigration, border control, and Obamacare repeal, and there is no reason to believe they wouldn't have.  And they certainly would be running a more competent White House now.


The sad fact is the Electoral College has turned against any Republican.  Florida is now going from a tossup state to a blue state with the Puerto Ricans moving there after the hurricane.  As awful of a candidate as Hilary was, she won the popular vote and would have won Michigan and Wisconsin, and probably Pennsylvania if she had campaigned there, which would have given her the Electoral votes needed to win. 

Trump was no wildly popular candidate.  2016 will go down as a year of lousy choices.  There was no great groundswell for Trump, a core of drones, and a bunch of people voting against Hilary.  Since the election he's gone out of his way to alienate everyone not part of his 20% of the country core group.  How do you think that plays out in the 2018 by-year elections?  The 2020 elections if the Ds run someone who's not detestable, corrupt, or insane? 

Trump isn't saving the only alternative to the ''progressives'', he's destroying them


Dr. MD MD

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 10:58:04 AM
These aren't really arguments.  I'm explaining reality

Delusions of grandeur. Consult your local physician.  :D

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 11:05:04 AM
Yeah, you said all that.  And I refuted it. 

Just one example:  Ted Cruz went against his party and almost singlehandedly held up the budget continuing resolution, the infamous ''shutting down the government'' when the Rs could have put an end to Obamacare because they controlled the House.  His filibuster went on for days, but the rest of them caved under attack from the fake news media.  Cruz let it go when there was no support and he would eventually lose anyway.

Does that sound like McCain or Romney to you?  Are all Rs in DC really just all the same?

Not arguing Cruz should have been the nominee, only that there were plenty on that list different and better than Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney.  They aren't all ''the same'', and wouldn't all run the same campaign.

Oh yeah? Which would those be?  ???





Quote from: Dr. MD MD on November 13, 2017, 11:36:35 AM
Oh yeah? Which would those be?  ???

Very few seem presidential, until they actually get elected.  When looking over a field of candidates, few ever jump out as The One. 

And yet when things play out the president at least seems presidential, and a candidate appears viable once they become the nominee.  There were a handful who were never serious contenders (Fiorina, Carson, etc), several that were always going to be rebuffed (Christy, Graham, Jeb Bush), several that were running for something else (book deals, cabinet or VP slot), and a handful that would have been viable candidates - certainly more attractive than Hilary Clinton.

Like I said, it depends on the campaign.  If you and I know McCain and Romney failed because of the way they ran their campaigns, don't you think people who follow this for a living and are personally involved know it too?  Granted the Rinos will draw the wrong conclusions, but not all of the candidates were Rinos

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 12:09:51 PM
Very few seem presidential, until they actually get elected.  When looking over a field of candidates, few ever jump out as The One. 

And yet when things play out the president at least seems presidential, and a candidate appears viable once they become the nominee.  There were a handful who were never serious contenders (Fiorina, Carson, etc), several that were always going to be rebuffed (Christy, Graham, Jeb Bush), several that were running for something else (book deals, cabinet or VP slot), and a handful that would have been viable candidates - certainly more attractive than Hilary Clinton.

Like I said, it depends on the campaign.  If you and I know McCain and Romney failed because of the way they ran their campaigns, don't you think people who follow this for a living and are personally involved know it too?  Granted the Rinos will draw the wrong conclusions, but not all of the candidates were Rinos

So, no one then?  :D

Gd5150

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on November 13, 2017, 12:09:51 PM
Very few seem presidential, until they actually get elected.
The only “presidential” president we’ve had in our lifetimes...Ronald Reagan. Romney had potential, but he’s still a bit young. The dems have been a joke. W was way to young. And that’s that.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod