President Donald J. Trump

[Yorkshire pud]

What's the deal?

I ask that same question; what of Trump do you believe?

[PB the Deplorable]

... 3.You're quoting me on something I never said or even implied.   Please don't do that, asshole.

You didn't try making the ol' 'they all do it' excuse? 

... 1.Every President dating back to, I think, Thomas Jefferson has used executive orders, though they had ...

[136 or 142]

Well, give it to me and I'll show you why I thought it.

Start around here:  http://bellgab.com/index.php/topic,2284.msg907129.html#msg907129

[136 or 142]

You didn't try making the ol' 'they all do it' excuse?

I was commenting on the long use of executive orders to show that they aren't inherently unconstitutional.  Or, at least, that nobody claimed that up to this point.

I made no comment, as you are clearly suggesting, that, if unconstitutional executive orders had been made in the past, that Obama should similarly be allowed to use them.  I keep writing: "it's up the courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) to determine the legality of any executive order."

[PB the Deplorable]

It's up to the court system to determine the proper role of the executive and the legislative.  Not me.

No, it's ultimately up to the American voters to decide what they will accept.

Barack Obama is not acceptable, and Hilary Clinton is not acceptable. 

[PB the Deplorable]

I was commenting on the long use of executive orders to show that they aren't inherently unconstitutional.  Or, at least, that nobody claimed that up to this point.

And again, it is the substance of each one. 

Many of Obama's so-called Executive Orders usurp powers that do not belong to the president, and are thus Unconstitutional.  In that context it doesn't matter what someone else may or may not have done, or how long ago.

[Jackstar]

I don't know, but so what if it is?

All I know is that there was some crazy person talking about the airport in Mena on Coast to Coast a while back.

At this point, what difference does it make?

[136 or 142]

And again, it is the substance of each one. 

Many of Obama's so-called Executive Orders usurp powers that do not belong to the president, and are thus Unconstitutional

I don't believe the Supreme Court has declared that with more than at most a handful of Obama's executive orders.  And, when they have, he has complied with their ruling.

[136 or 142]

No, it's ultimately up to the American voters to decide what they will accept.

Barack Obama is not acceptable, and Hilary Clinton is not acceptable.

You're claiming to be every American voter?

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm qualified to read financial statements because I have a diploma in accounting.  (For what it's worth I previously wrote I 'mostly worked as a bookkeeper' which is the normal position for most any third and forth level accounting students - I would assume Warren Buffet's accounting firm employees similarly, I also did work as a junior auditor.)

However, I highly doubt you've even worked as a bookkeeper yet alone have a diploma in accounting, so if I'm not qualified to opine on financial statements, then you're not even qualified to look at them.

Of course, your lack of a working brain renders the whole point moot anyway.

No one with a degree in accounting has the experience necessary to review a set of financial statements of any complexity and discuss them in any but the most superficial terms.  Sure that person could read them - they are in English - but understanding comes with experience.  It certainly helps to have audited other quite a few companies and looked at many different sets of books along the way, and to have prepared something other than the simplest financials  oneself.

Someone who had done that and was any good at it would have risen above bookkeeper, ergo you aren't qualified based on what you've said so far.  Probably a case of 'the more one knows, the more one knows what he doesn't know', and you think you know a lot.

Here in the US bookkeepers are not accountants, or even on the way to becoming accountants - they enter sales invoices and purchase invoices, payroll, and may issue a very preliminary draft of financial statements.  The accountants then make the non-cash and more complex entries and ensure the rest is accurate.  To say you're a bookkeeper is to say you are very limited in this area.  Maybe the terms are different in Canada.  Perhaps. 

[136 or 142]

No one with a degree in accounting has the experience necessary to review a set of financial statements of any complexity and discuss them in any but the most superficial terms.  Sure that person could read them - they are in English - but understanding comes with experience.  It certainly helps to have audited other quite a few companies and looked at many different sets of books along the way, and to have prepared something other than the simplest financials  oneself.

Someone who had done that and was any good at it would have risen above bookkeeper, ergo you aren't qualified based on what you've said so far.  Probably a case of 'the more one knows, the more one knows what he doesn't know', and you think you know a lot.

Here in the US bookkeepers are not accountants, or even on the way to becoming accountants - they enter sales invoices and purchase invoices, payroll, and may issue a very preliminary draft of financial statements.  The accountants then make the non-cash and more complex entries and ensure the rest is accurate.  To say you're a bookkeeper is to say you are very limited in this area.  Maybe the terms are different in Canada.  Perhaps.

1.If you don't even have an accounting diploma, how do you know what I can know through having an accounting diploma?

2.I made adjusting entries and closed the books on a number of our client's accounts.  That probably is considered to be an accountant in Canada but I didn't do a lot of it, so I didn't want to refer myself as an 'accountant.'

It was relatively routine and I did not offer accounting advice or do any complicated tax work, so I did not want to overstate my position.  There are many people who do not work as accountants who study accounting and gain the knowledge to read financial statements, they tend to work in finance and banking.  They don't handle the books of firms either.

You say that I lack the qualifications to comment, yet, you don't have any qualifications and it's evident that neither do the people who you believe in this matter.  If you don't think I have the qualifications, then how can you take those people seriously?

You're just being your usual stupid flake self again.

[PB the Deplorable]

I don't believe the Supreme Court has declared that with more than at most a handful of Obama's executive orders.  And, when they have, he has complied with their ruling.

Yes, that's why I wrote the following.  Try to keep up:

... He's done so much, and our system goes so slow, by the time one abuse has been caught up with and stopped, he's on to a half dozen others.  It's not a coincidence he's masterful at usurping power, he's been studying this for decades...

My question is why do we want a president who continues to take power from our other elected representatives, from the states, from the citizens, from anyone who is in the way of what he wants?  That is not how our system is supposed to work, whether he or you or anyone else likes it or not.

And why support Mrs Clinton, who in the opinion of many of us, would continue to do the same?

Some of you insist Trump is some sort of dictator wannabe.  With no real evidence. 

The two comments I'd make to that are 1) if anyone wants to know what the Left is up do, listen to what they are accusing their enemies of - works every time.  Well, they're accusing Trump of being an authoritarian dictator, so it's a safe assumption she really would attempt to govern like one.  And 2) that certainty is my view of her based on the past twenty years she's been in the public eye.

[PB the Deplorable]

By the way, did you ever put together a list of her accomplishments, or all the great things she has planned to get this country back on track?

Does anyone know the specifics of why she wants to be president, other than personal power and more ''donations''?

[136 or 142]

Yes, that's why I wrote the following.  Try to keep up:


My question is why do we want a president who continues to take power from our other elected representatives, from the states, from the citizens, from anyone who is in the way of what he wants?  That is not how our system is supposed to work, whether he or you or anyone else likes it or not.

And why support Mrs Clinton, who in the opinion of many of us, would continue to do the same?

Some of you insist Trump is some sort of dictator wannabe.  With no real evidence. 

The two comments I'd make to that are 1) if anyone wants to know what the Left is up do, listen to what they are accusing their enemies of - works every time.  Well, they're accusing Trump of being an authoritarian dictator, so it's a safe assumption she really would attempt to govern like one.  And 2) that certainty is my view of her based on the past twenty years she's been in the public eye.

1.I read the second part of your statement.  It was conspiracy theory nonsense.

2.Did you vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004?

[PB the Deplorable]

1.If you don't even have an accounting diploma, how do you know what I can know through having an accounting diploma?

2.I made adjusting entries and closed the books on a number of our client's accounts.  That probably is considered to be an accountant in Canada but I didn't do a lot of it, so I didn't want to refer myself as an 'accountant.'

It was relatively routine and I did not offer accounting advice or do any complicated tax work, so I did not want to overstate my position.  There are many people who do not work as accountants who study accounting and gain the knowledge to read financial statements, they tend to work in finance and banking.  They don't handle the books of firms either.

You say that I lack the qualifications to comment, yet, you don't have any qualifications and it's evident that neither do the people who you believe in this matter.  If you don't think I have the qualifications, then how can you take those people seriously?

You're just being your usual stupid flake self again.

If by reviewing the Clinton's books, you think they can go from 'broke' to well over $200 million dollars in personal wealth in 15 years by running a 'foundation', and it's all on the up and up, and none of it was from influence peddling, then you obviously missed something. 

[136 or 142]

If by reviewing the Clinton's books, you think they can go from 'broke' to well over $200 million dollars in personal wealth by running a 'foundation', and it's all on the up and up, then you obviously missed something.

I never wrote anything of the sort, or even implied it.

Based on their tax returns the Clinton's made most of their money by giving speeches and authoring books.  Anything illegal in that? Or are only Republicans allowed to make money through the free enterprise system?

You were the one who said in regards to Trump's Foundation 'it's his money he can do with it what he likes.'  Is there any legal difference between this Clinton Foundation and the Trump Foundation, or are you just such a brain*dead, hyper*partisan, Republic*an that you don't even notice when you contradict yourself?

[PB the Deplorable]

I never wrote anything of the sort, or even implied it...

I'm not even going to bother looking for it.  You've insisted in multiple posts you're qualified to look at their financial statements because you're a bookkeeper with a degree in accounting, and everything they've done financially is just fine

[136 or 142]

I'm not even going to bother looking for it.  You've insisted in multiple posts you're qualified to look at their financial statements because you're a bookkeeper with a degree in accounting, and everything they've done financially is just fine

I've actually said I have a diploma (two year program) not a degree (four year program.) The diploma focuses on technical accounting work and the degree focuses on accounting theory.

I've never written or even implied that everything in the Clinton Foundation financial statements are fine, just that the claims of wrongdoing based on these financial statements are false and were clearly written by people who don't know how to read financial statements.

Did you vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004?

[PB the Deplorable]

... You were the one who said in regards to Trump's Foundation 'it's his money he can do with it what he likes.'  Is there any legal difference between this Clinton Foundation and the Trump Foundation, or are you just such a brain*dead, hyper*partisan, Republic*an that you don't even notice when you contradict yourself?

Remember that word we talked about before?  Perspective.

There's hundreds of millions of dollars, if not a billion dollars difference between the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Foundation.  Where did all that money come from?  Why was it "donated''?  How did they manage to skim off so much without going to jail?

And you want to talk about a quarter of $1 million, that actually went to charities.  Dang dude.

[136 or 142]

Remember that word we talked about before?  Perspective.

There's hundreds of millions of dollars, if not a billion dollars difference between the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Foundation.  Where did all that money come from?  Why was it "donated''?  How did they manage to skim off so much without going to jail?

And you want to talk about a quarter of $1 million, that actually went to charities.  Dang dude.

Where does 'perspective' come into 'it's his foundation so he can do with the money what ever he likes' (or whatever it was exactly that you said.)

If these are the same type of Foundations they same rules apply.  Just because the Clinton Foundation was more successful does not negate any illegal use of Trump of the money in his foundation.

Also, millions of $ donated to the Clinton Foundation went to charitable work.

Your only real perspective is that Trump is the Republican Presidential candidate, so I accept whatever he does and will defend it no matter how much of a fool I have to make of myself (though you do that without even trying) but Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Presidential candidate, so nothing she does is acceptable.

You're no different than any hyper*partisan in that regard.  You're just stupider than most of them.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Did you vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004?

I voted against John Kerry for his (alleged) traitorous actions when he came back from Vietnam - (allegedly) lying about the actions of our soldiers to Congress, (allegedly) going to Paris and advising the North Vietnamese to stall on peace talks until we would just leave.  He should have been executed.  It's not a shock he was just the person Obama wanted as Sec St to continue Hilary's disastrous policies

So yeah, Bush over that piece of shit.


It's quite the lineup the Ds have, and they wonder why people would choose Donald Trump over that.

[136 or 142]

I voted against John Kerry for his (alleged) traitorous actions when he came back from Vietnam - (allegedly) lying about the actions of our soldiers to Congress, (allegedly) going to Paris and advising the North Vietnamese to stall on peace talks until we would just leave.  He should have been executed.  It's not a shock he was just the person Obama wanted as Sec St to continue Hilary's disastrous policies

So yeah, Bush over that piece of shit.

So, you voted for Bush/Cheney. So much for your principles on executive orders.

You're not just a stupid hyper*partisan, you're a sleazy liar as well.

You're bottom of the barrel pond scum. In other words, a proud Trumptard.

[PB the Deplorable]

So, you voted for Bush/Cheney. So much for your principles on executive orders.

You're not just a stupid hyper*partisan, you're a sleazy liar as well.

You're bottom of the barrel pond scum. In other words, a proud Trumptard.

Try reading the post again, you might get some - there's that word again - perspective

[PB the Deplorable]

Where does 'perspective' come into 'it's his foundation so he can do with the money what ever he likes' (or whatever it was exactly that you said.)

If these are the same type of Foundations they same rules apply.  Just because the Clinton Foundation was more successful does not negate any illegal use of Trump of the money in his foundation.

Also, millions of $ donated to the Clinton Foundation went to charitable work.

Your only real perspective is that Trump is the Republican Presidential candidate, so I accept whatever he does and will defend it no matter how much of a fool I have to make of myself (though you do that without even trying) but Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Presidential candidate, so nothing she does is acceptable.

You're no different than any hyper*partisan in that regard.  You're just stupider than most of them.

You really are quite the tool, your handlers should be proud.

[136 or 142]

Try reading the post again, you might get some - there's that word again - perspective

I read it.  You can rationalize your vote however you like, if you 'think' it justifies it.

When you hold up something to be a principle, it isn't subject to perspective, or, what I thought conservatives hated, situational ethics.

Anyway, I'm done with you, you worthless pond scum.

[136 or 142]

You really are quite the tool, your handlers should be proud.

I didn't see this earlier.

Your handlers in the mental institution you're locked up in won't be proud of themselves when they see your posts.

Now I'm done with you.

[PB the Deplorable]

Where does 'perspective' come into 'it's his foundation so he can do with the money what ever he likes' (or whatever it was exactly that you said.)

If these are the same type of Foundations they same rules apply.  Just because the Clinton Foundation was more successful does not negate any illegal use of Trump of the money in his foundation.

Also, millions of $ donated to the Clinton Foundation went to charitable work.

Your only real perspective is that Trump is the Republican Presidential candidate, so I accept whatever he does and will defend it no matter how much of a fool I have to make of myself (though you do that without even trying) but Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Presidential candidate, so nothing she does is acceptable.

You're no different than any hyper*partisan in that regard.  You're just stupider than most of them.

You're the one who's insistence the Clinton's couldn't be corrupt to the core, and that Obama couldn't be an authoritarian wannabe is proven due to a lack of court convictions against them.  I'm sure you'll deny it now, the way you've denied other comments you've made today.

But the court agreed to the Trump settlements.  For Obama and the Clintons, that they haven't been hauled into court yet is good enough for you, but the Trump deal approved by the courts isn't? 

Well that's sure strange.  Based on that I'd be prone to think you're a hypocrite, or a complete phony, but you're really more of a tool who parrots back whatever he hears from Big Media and whatever his dumb Lib friends say. 

[analog kid]

By the way, did you ever put together a list of her accomplishments, or all the great things she has planned to get this country back on track?

Does anyone know the specifics of why she wants to be president, other than personal power and more ''donations''?

Trump supporters don't care that he's a pathological liar, and the biggest, scariest piece of shit anyone has ever seen. Because they want to send a Trump nuke into the White House. You want to watch the world burn? Great. Start with your own house.

[Dr. MD MD]

Trump supporters don't care that he's a pathological liar, and the biggest, scariest piece of shit anyone has ever seen. Because they want to send a Trump nuke into the White House. You want to watch the world burn? Great. Start with your own house.

CLIMB BACK FROM THE LEDGE, SIR! IT"S NOT WORTH IT!! 

[Value Of Pi]

Trump supporters don't care that he's a pathological liar, and the biggest, scariest piece of shit anyone has ever seen. Because they want to send a Trump nuke into the White House. You want to watch the world burn? Great. Start with your own house.

A person has to be pretty bitter to want to watch the world burn, but bitter and angry does describe a lot of Trump supporters. Many are just focused on tearing down who and what they hate and don't feel like they have much to lose in the attempt.

It's interesting how Trump used that appeal to black voters -- you've got nothing anyway so what have you got to lose? -- because that's much more how some of the more desperate white Trump voters see prospects for themselves. Globalization, major social change and the ever-growing political correctness in society have set the stage for Trump's exploitation of all the anger.

They really are not thinking about how much worse off the country would be with Trump. Deep down, they're past caring.