President Donald J. Trump

[Dr. MD MD]

Then the Daily Caller lied about the IRS citation.

And the proof of this claim? <he asks, not holding his breath>

[136 or 142]

Trump has nothing to do with it. If I was trying to vote for someone like me I'd just vote for Clinton. She's piled up a stack of bodies in her time. 

I'm sure a President Trump would top Hillary Clinton's body count by several orders of magnitude in a very short period of time.

[21st Century Man]

Maybe a rather small minority here.  But you already seem to have made it quite clear you can only handle being in an echo chamber.  If you were to post in a neutral but serious political site like Dave Liep's Atlas Forum or a Democratic dominated, but serious site, like Political Wire, I suspect most of the posters in those places would laugh at what you thought were serious/credible arguments.

I can take disagreement.  I don't need an echo chamber as you put it.  There are many on this site that I disagree with but I don't treat them like shit nor do they me.  Only 2 people that I know on the forum that I get in constant fights with.  That is you and Donald Noory.  You are in very special company. 

You know I enjoy talking politics with regular folks not political junkies caught up in beltway groupthink.  If I were to engage them, I'd do the proper homework.  I don't have that ambition though.  Frankly,  I avoid most political websites outside of a few news sites. I don't watch Fox or any other network.  Frankly, I'm sick to death of politics to be honest but it's like being at a car crash, I've got to look.

[136 or 142]

And the proof of this claim? <he asks, not holding his breath>

The various Charity Watch organizations.

The Clinton Foundation Financial Statements.

Various Fact Check news organizations.

[136 or 142]

I can take disagreement.  I don't need an echo chamber as you put it.  There are many on this site that I disagree with but I don't treat them like shit nor do they me.  Only 2 people that I know on the forum that I get in constant fights with.  That is you and Donald Noory.  You are in very special company. 

You know I enjoy talking politics with regular folks not political junkies caught up in beltway groupthink.  If I were to engage them, I'd do the proper homework.  I don't have that ambition though.  Frankly,  I avoid most political websites outside of a few news sites. I don't watch Fox or any other network.  Frankly, I'm sick to death of politics to be honest but its like being at a car crash, I've got to look.

I don't know whether your use of meaningless slogans and phrases counts as groupthink or not, but I do know that that is all you seem to be capable of posting here.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'm sure a President Trump would top Hillary Clinton's body count by several orders of magnitude in a very short period of time.

Your reason for thinking that? 

[Dr. MD MD]

The various Charity Watch organizations.

The Clinton Foundation Financial Statements.

Various Fact Check news organizations.

So, basically cuz Bill and Hillary said so.  :

[21st Century Man]

I don't know whether your use of meaningless slogans and phrases counts as groupthink or not, but I do know that that is all you seem to be capable of posting here.

I never post anything without meaning.  I guess you just aren't very bright.  There can be no other answer.

[Dr. MD MD]

I don't know whether your use of meaningless slogans and phrases counts as groupthink or not, but I do know that that is all you seem to be capable of posting here.

Shill  :

[136 or 142]

Your reason for thinking that? 

1.He's very thin skinned and holds personal grudges to an incredible extreme (he still sends a letter a year demanding an apology or something to the person at Spy Magazine who wrote an article saying that Trump has 'small hands.' )

2.He has a hair trigger temper.

3.His authoritarian attitudes are usually, though not always, the attitudes of warmongers.

4.Despite his lying, he has not opposed a single military venture in the last 25 or so years.  In fact, for example, with the U.S action against Qaddafi in Libya, Trump initially said that Secretary Clinton and President Obama waited too long to react.

[21st Century Man]

Shill  :

Like Bartles and Jaymes once said, I appreciate your support.

[136 or 142]

So, basically cuz Bill and Hillary said so.  :

No various organizations who use the same information that the Daily Caller misrepresented.

[136 or 142]

I never post anything without meaning.  I guess you just aren't very bright.  There can be no other answer.

No, that's the problem. You aren't bright at all.  You actually believe the meaningless slogans and phrases you mindlessly regurgitate actually have meaning.  They don't.

[GravitySucks]

Maybe a rather small minority here.  But you already seem to have made it quite clear you can only handle being in an echo chamber.  If you were to post in a neutral but serious political site like Dave Liep's Atlas Forum or a Democratic dominated, but serious site, like Political Wire, I suspect most of the posters in those places would laugh at what you thought were serious/credible arguments.

Now I know where you get all your arguments from. I knew you couldn't type that fast. Another PhD from the University of <Ctrl-c><Ctrl-v>

[21st Century Man]

No, that's the problem. You aren't bright at all.  You actually believe the meaningless slogans and phrases you mindlessly regurgitate actually have meaning.  They don't.

That is your opinion and your opinion alone.

[136 or 142]

Now I know where you get all your arguments from. I knew you couldn't type that fast. Another PhD from the University of <Ctrl-c><Ctrl-v>

Whenever I use somebody else's argument I always site the original poster.  Nearly all of the arguments I post here are my own though.

We already know however, that you and several others here get all of your dishonest arguments from Falsify the Record.

[136 or 142]

That is your opinion and your opinion alone.

Except in the case where you tried to show me the meaning of strict constructionist and you linked to a website that called it a meaningless phrase.

That was hilarious.

[21st Century Man]

Whenever I use somebody else's argument I always site the original poster.  Nearly all of the arguments I post here are my own though.

We already know however, that you and several others here get all of your dishonest arguments from Falsify the Record.

That is all you can do is Attack, Attack, Attack.  Does it give you an orgasm?  Why bother coming here at all if you don't want to get along?  Does Correct the Record pay you that well?

[Juan]

Whenever I use somebody else's argument I always site the original poster.  Nearly all of the arguments I post here are my own though.

We already know however, that you and several others here get all of your dishonest arguments from Falsify the Record.

Sure you site them.

[21st Century Man]

Except in the case where you tried to show me the meaning of strict constructionist and you linked to a website that called it a meaningless phrase.

That was hilarious.

That was a dumbass mistake and I'll be the first to admit it.  I'm sure it was hilarious on your side of the fence.  I'm not perfect. Just human. Damn, you must be having multiple orgasms now.  Any other faults you want to point out?  Go ahead.  I've got a thick skin unlike you.

[136 or 142]

That is all you can do is Attack, Attack, Attack.  Does it give you an orgasm?  Why bother coming here at all if you don't want to get along?  Does Correct the Record pay you that well?

1.I've written previously why I post here.  One of my concerns is the debasement of language with the use of meaningless phrases and slogans. You happen to be the #1 exemplar here of engaging in that.

2.There you go again with the porn references.

3.I work for Correct the Record.  How original.

4.I have made many posts that I consider to be informational. What do you do here other than post stupid memes that even you admit on at least one occasion went way over the top other than post nonsense or outright falsehoods defending Donald Trump?

[21st Century Man]

1.I've written previously why I post here.  One of my concerns is the debasement of language with the use of meaningless phrases and slogans. You happen to be the #1 exemplar here of engaging in that.

2.There you go again with the porn references.

3.I work for Correct the Record.  How original.

Are you a prude, 136?  You sure act like one.  Sex is good.  The most beautiful  activity on Earth.  The fact that you seem to have problems with it says a lot about you.  Are you embarrassed by sex?  Prematurely ejaculate much?  Or maybe you just can't get it up.  I think I'll go with the latter.  No wonder you are miserable and treat people like shit.

[GravitySucks]

That was a dumbass mistake and I'll be the first to admit it.  I'm sure it was hilarious on your side of the fence.  I'm not perfect. Just human. Damn, you must be having multiple orgasms now.  Any other faults you want to point out?  Go ahead.  I've got a thick skin unlike you.

21, you know his type

[21st Century Man]

21, you know his type

ROTFLMAO!  That is exactly what I have in my head when I picture him.   Yes indeed.  Thanks, GS.

[136 or 142]

Are you a prude, 136?  You sure act like one.  Sex is good.  The most beautiful  activity on Earth.  The fact that you seem to have problems with it says a lot about you.  Are you embarrassed by sex?  Prematurely ejaculate much?  Or maybe you just can't get it up.  I think I'll go with the latter.  No wonder you are miserable and treat people like shit.

1.I treat people the way I think they deserve to be treated based on how they act. 

2.Sex is a lot more than pornography. I personally don't like pornography, but I don't care what other people do.

3.Picking up on that, you're the one that wanted the ability of homosexuals to marry to be subject to the will of the majority.  What business is their sexual activity to you?

[21st Century Man]

1.I treat people the way I think they deserve to be treated based on how they act. 

2.Sex is a lot more than pornography. I personally don't like pornography, but I don't care what other people do.

3.Picking up on that, you're the one that wanted the ability of homosexuals to marry to be subject to the will of the majority.  What business is their sexual activity to you?

I think the law should have been changed by the people not the courts.  Isn't that the way laws are supposed to be changed?  My bad if I'm wrong.  That was my only opposition to the idea. I've always been for homosexual couples having the same rights as het couples.     As for 2, of course sex is more than pornography. Why do you think I am married?  Are you married, 136?  Somehow I don't think so.

[136 or 142]

I think the law should have been changed by the people not the courts.  Isn't that the way laws are supposed to be changed? That was my only opposition to the idea. I've always been for homosexual couples having the same rights as het couples.    My bad if I'm wrong.  As  2, of course sex is more than pornography. Why do you think I am married?  Are you married, 136?  Somehow I don't think so.

1.No, I am not married, not that it's really any of your business.
I don't know why you are married, and it doesn't concern me.

2.Then what is the purpose of the Constitution for?   "We have this document guaranteeing equal rights and we can't see why it shouldn't apply to homosexuals in this case, but we're going to ignore the Constitution and subject a group of people's fundamental rights to the whims of the majority."

[Value Of Pi]

21st and 136: It's kind of a shame to see you two clashing. You are each part of a very small group of people on this forum, especially in the Politics section, to ever admit to making a mistake or to have possibly misjudged a situation -- although maybe not to each other.

For a forum where the usual debating rules don't apply and where people generally resort to insults rather than admit that an opposing voice has made a convincing or valid argument, that's saying something. Let's just face the fact that the culture here, like a lot of places, rewards fighting and devalues sober discussion. This place couldn't solve its way out of a paper bag -- and that's just its nature.

[21st Century Man]

1.No, I am not married, not that it's really any of your business.

2.Then what is the purpose of the Constitution for?   "We have this document guaranteeing equal rights and we can't see why it shouldn't apply to homosexuals in this case, but we'd better ignore this Constitution and subject a group of people's fundamental rights to the whims of the majority."

Homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage is not recognized in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it shouldn't even be in the purview of government, IMHO other than a simple justice of the peace ceremony.  The fact of the matter is that the prevalence of insurance and income taxes in our culture made it necessary for the govt. to assume a role in recognizing marriage.  Homosexual marriage is a 21st century idea and it should have been codefied into law not decided by judges. That is how a representative democracy works.  I don't believe judges should be making law.

[(Sandman) Logan-5]

Sure you site them.

    Nice double entendre.