This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Does he? Not convinced of that at all. He might. Then again he might not.
THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I understand this but isn't Trump lying to people about everyone else lying to them? His economic plan resembles an NBA player's view on finances. Spend, spend, spend...worry about the consequences later.
In the last two months which candidate seems more presidential in their actions? This is why trump is catching up
How has Trump demonstrated his "presidential" actions? Was it when he lied to the president of Mexico, or when he offered a half-baked solution to fixing America by spending like drunk iron worker?
He actually went to Mexico. He actually went to Louisiana during the floods and he didn't pass out at a 9-11 ceremony and didn't call half the democrats "deplorable"
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
He showed up for 10 minutes over the governor's objection, then pretended to lift heavy objects for 10 minutes, then left.
Yep, he went and then this was the result.
He wanted to get out of there before someone asked him how much he has given to charity over the past X amount of years. We all know that number is close to $0 of course, but I digress.
At this point, only the truly obtuse and ignorant can deny Hillary's henchmen were the first to use the birther issue for political gain. It didn't give them much traction in a democratic primary, but it certainly was a part, along with the photos of Obama in Kenyan garb, to paint him as un-American. Hillary was incredulous about losing ground to "that man" and her operatives took it up a level, including floating the whole birth certificate nonsense.
Fundamentally, Trump is viewed by a large swath of voters as telling it like it is, whereas the vast majority of voters do not believe Hillary tells anything like it is.
I think that would still be better than a foundation only giving 5.7%. And there's the problem, it's always who's worse.
There's hope yet Tim!!!! I'm in this boat and it's why I a can't get to "fearful" of Trump outside the "fear" of the unknown. It's a strange dichotomy his naysayers are facing....they have no idea what he believes, but they believe what he says enough to be scared of what he's saying.
Therein lies the issue. Being "exciting" is pretty far down on the list of necessary qualities for a president. Except for non-educated whites and their wives, apparently.
Well uncertainty can lead to economic crises and foolhardiness can lead to wars, but hey "what the hell do we have to lose?"
We have plenty to lose
What if that foundation also had implementation arms that made it the equivalent of a foundation giving 80%-90%?
Commish I'm fearful because whatever he believes, everything he says is dumb and terrible. Almost all of his proposals are awful. And he shuns complexity and nuanced thinking in favor of whatever seems the most simplistic reaction.
This is one of your more nonsensical arguments. You're acting like he's a mystery man who has never uttered a word just because he flip-flops on penalizing women who have abortions and bounces back and force between bloodthirsty war criminal and isolationist. We know plenty about him.
Why do you think Trump and his surrogates are all over the news pushing the Hillary started it narrative? It's obviously a coordinated effort to try to deflect and shift the blame. And it's working on some of you.
SID has had a tremendous track record, particularly during the email investigation at which time you, Tim, and a quiz were spreading "nothing to see here, move along" propaganda.
Seriously - this is your analysis of the birther issue? Trump's entire candidacy hinges on him garnering support based on his birtherism over he last 5 years. Hillary has never once questioned Obama's birthplace and has always denounced those who did.
Tommy, I provide links and information. You want to disagree with it, that's fine. Just at least do yourself the favor of evaluating the information instead of disregarding it out of hand, sight unseen. My position is that acknowledging some or any of these facts about Hillary doesn't affect whether you or anyone should or would vote for her over Trump, and if you're evaluating claims based on who they help if they're correct then again you're doing it wrong. See your OP on this. That's my point.
It turned out with an FBI report, released notes, testimony, a press conference and soon to be released thousands of emails on public issues which were deleted after subpoena.
It ended with the FBI director giving a press conference laying out a very solid case for indictment.
It's not an argument. It's an observation. If one says he's a liar and we can't trust a think he says, that's fine. We can't trust a thing he says. I'm good with that. However, as soon as one turns around and says "wow, did you just hear that?" and extrapolates from words that supposedly can't be trusted in the first place, I find it a bit silly. Can't have it both ways.
He is? What happened to Mr. Ham?
So far, I agree here. Though I don't get worked up over them because I know he's not going to get any of it pushed through.
It's not having it both ways He's a liar, and he's thin-skinned and irresponsible and hateful and stupid. Those things can (and obviously do) co-exist and are all bad characteristics of a leader. Your logic is flawed.
Larry Johnson is a trusted source for you now? Are you onboard with his recent Hillary has Parkinson's blog post as well?
This is shifting from the point. The point was one can't get worked up over what he's saying if they also believe everything he says is a lie. Of course he's think skinned and irresponsible. I didn't introduce that to the conversation.
That's actually 3 things..all of which of true. He's need to stoke his HUMONGOUS ego is the worst characteristic though since it's so easy to get under his skin (see the Flint pastor or Gates this weekend)
People are so tires of being lied to that they are supporting a candidate who in his short time on the political stage is pretty much unrivaled in modern US Politics with regard to lying publically.
Sorry Saints - while I appreciate the effort, I don't have the time nor the motivation to wade through much of the sludge you post on these boards. It's as if Noquarter.blog is just as credible in your world as a well sourced Post or Times article is.SaintsInDome2006 said:
Just a point: Tommy's original point, as I read it, is that information, pro or con Hillary, should be judged by how or whether it helps or hurts Hillary. I think we can all agree, from any angle, that is the wrong way to evaluate information.TobiasFunke said:
