462 replies to this topic

[Lysistrata]

Whitebeard, on 04 May 2016 - 20:29, said:

Well, my point is that he hates and always hated Chinese people. He's repeatedly been on about not trading with China as they'll become  a great world power and all this. If he had the decency to say 'no trading with China', why on earth would he make his own ties there? That's trading with China isn't it? He's contradicting himself; too dumb to take over a country like USA and become a President.

Yet another myth. Donald Trump does not hate Chinese people... he does business with China. He knows how they have manipulated their currency, stolen intellectual property, and twisted trade agreements to screw over the USA for years. He promises to change all this. He wants us to actually make things again. I for one, would like to see that happen, and I'm encouraged to actually hear that someone will do something about it.

 

Hello Rafay... the IRS is a Government agency under the direction of the President that is currently in office. They are charged with the noble job of collecting tax revenue. This is the proper function of the IRS. What is horribly wrong with the agency is that it literally has the power to destroy lives... and this President Barack Obama had this agency destroying the lives of his political opponents. The practice of using the IRS to harm people for political purposes must end... and also, the IRS makes criminals out of average hardworking people just for making money. The IRS needs to work for the people as it was intended.

[onbekende]

Obama using IRS to bankrupt every american = bad

Trump wanting to libel-suit everyone opposing him = good

 

???

[Lysistrata]

onbekende, on 04 May 2016 - 23:13, said:

Obama using IRS to bankrupt every american = bad

Trump wanting to libel-suit everyone opposing him = good

 

???

Obama didn't use the IRS to bankrupt every American... he used the IRS to deny tax exemptions to conservatives, while paving the road for his supporters. When did Trump file a "libel-suit" against you? I assume you are opposing Trump, am I right?... Or are you just trolling me again?

[onbekende]

I heared about the more conservative groups getting IRS heat on them, something from start of his first term no? Also cleared from any charges by a senate commitee run by Republicans no? Yes the IRS probably went gun-ho on a certain grouping of organisations, but why exactly was this Obama's fault again? Heck knowing politics (and especially 2-party politics), I guess when parties switch, the IRS scrutiny switches aswell no?

 

Trump wants to broaden the libel-suit possibilities, mostly for his own gain offcourse.

 

Yes I am opposing Trump, yes I shall be trolling you aswell

[Lysistrata]

onbekende, on 04 May 2016 - 23:58, said:

I heared about the more conservative groups getting IRS heat on them, something from start of his first term no? Also cleared from any charges by a senate commitee run by Republicans no? Yes the IRS probably went gun-ho on a certain grouping of organisations, but why exactly was this Obama's fault again? Heck knowing politics (and especially 2-party politics), I guess when parties switch, the IRS scrutiny switches aswell no?

 

Trump wants to broaden the libel-suit possibilities, mostly for his own gain offcourse.

 

Yes I am opposing Trump, yes I shall be trolling you aswell

No one was "cleared", and when Chris Christie is Attorney General, there will be a reckoning. I don't want either side having that power... it's totally wrong. Trump is a U.S. citizen, and he can use our legal system just like everyone else.

[Rafay]

Who should Trump name as VP? I think he should go for Kasich as he is a moderate and can make bridges across the aisle and help get things done in an otherwise deadlocked congress, It'll help secure Ohio and maybe even Pennsylvania. Both are necessary to get to that 270.

 

Susana Martinez, Gov. New Mexico may also be a good choice to secure Latino and women's voters (Trump is losing 69-31 in women to Hillary and almost same in Latinos acc. to CNN)

 

Maybe even Newt Gingrich?

[onbekende]

Lysistrata, on 05 May 2016 - 00:07, said:

 

No one was "cleared", and when Chris Christie is Attorney General, there will be a reckoning. I don't want either side having that power... it's totally wrong. Trump is a U.S. citizen, and he can use our legal system just like everyone else.

 

 

Only some were charged from what I can tell (and some resigned), nobody with links to Obama nor to his administration, seems like alot of smoke but no fire.

 

Again, you want someone to be Attorney General while persuing a personal agenda? Do you understand the need to seperate the executive, legislature and judiciary branches? Either you sue people now under the rule of law or you approve the making of specific laws to sue specific people you dislike. One of these smells awfully like a loss of freedom, don't ya think?

 

Yeah Trump can already libel-sue people/organisations/groups, funnely enough he does so already plenty and usually loses, so you want to give him the power to change laws to his personal benefit? another smelly business I'd say.

[Lysistrata]

oops... more IRS corruption...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/05/lawmakers-demand-irs-explain-how-it-found-for-hundreds-new-agents.html?intcmp=hpbt3

[hilowe]

onbekende, on 05 May 2016 - 17:16, said:

..so you want to give him the power to change laws to his personal benefit...

Ummm, President cannot actually make laws, even though the current one sure does try by executive fiat, I mean executive order. President can't even put legislation on the floor for the House and Senate to debate. He/She is forced to work with the members of Congress, and after it's passed, has only three options. Sign it, veto it, or ignore it (in which case, it becomes law after some time, 28 days, IIRC).

If Trump were to win the presidency, I don't see the libel laws changing, because I don't see the members of Congress actively working with him to do that. IMO, the members of Congress are out for their own interests only, and if it doesn't serve them somehow, they won't go for it.

[The Warrior]

hilowe, on 06 May 2016 - 13:45, said:

 

onbekende, on 05 May 2016 - 17:16, said:

..so you want to give him the power to change laws to his personal benefit...

Ummm, President cannot actually make laws, even though the current one sure does try by executive fiat, I mean executive order. President can't even put legislation on the floor for the House and Senate to debate. He/She is forced to work with the members of Congress, and after it's passed, has only three options. Sign it, veto it, or ignore it (in which case, it becomes law after some time, 28 days, IIRC).

Thank you! I was going to say more or less the same thing.

[onbekende]

Lysistrata, on 05 May 2016 - 22:27, said:

oops... more IRS corruption...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/05/lawmakers-demand-irs-explain-how-it-found-for-hundreds-new-agents.html?intcmp=hpbt3

 

So now finding some money in the middle of a department restructuring is corruption? Well guess any department is corrupt then. Nobody explains where the money comes from, so it could just as likely be that they are stalling some modernisation project or so and using the money from it to try and curve the understaffing. If it was from corruption, then it would mean there is now less corruption now no? Overall money stays the same but suddenly more people get from the pie = less corrupt money!

 

Reminds me kinda at our government, claiming we could do with x% less public workers but when you look at each department up till the individual person, they find nobody they can do without and actually all demand more employees. Heck perhaps they just used the already budgetted money from workers they had to sack last year to get new ones this year.

 

PS. what is this graph of "U.S. Department of the Treasury Spending"? That thing flunctuates like mad and has a figure in the hundreds of billions $$, if that is a budget like it says it is, I want to question that departments accountants

 

hilowe, on 06 May 2016 - 13:45, said:

 

onbekende, on 05 May 2016 - 17:16, said:

..so you want to give him the power to change laws to his personal benefit...

Ummm, President cannot actually make laws, even though the current one sure does try by executive fiat, I mean executive order. President can't even put legislation on the floor for the House and Senate to debate. He/She is forced to work with the members of Congress, and after it's passed, has only three options. Sign it, veto it, or ignore it (in which case, it becomes law after some time, 28 days, IIRC).

If Trump were to win the presidency, I don't see the libel laws changing, because I don't see the members of Congress actively working with him to do that. IMO, the members of Congress are out for their own interests only, and if it doesn't serve them somehow, they won't go for it.

 

so he is just claiming bollocks? He is starting to sound like a politician then

 

>_>

[Lysistrata]

onbekende, on 07 May 2016 - 09:10, said:

So now finding some money in the middle of a department restructuring is corruption?

It's not that simple. The IRS was caught targeting Obama's political enemies... this is not a maybe, it's a fact. The House of Representatives cut their funding as punishment. Koskinen cried poverty, he could not run the agency on a shoestring budget, he would have to cut personnel and slash services... "OMG! The American taxpayers will SUFFER!"

 

Low and behold, under such anemic cash flow, they were able to afford to hire between 600 and 700 new enforcement employees... which means he was lying... again.

[Lysistrata]

Since the Republican nomination has been decided... I think it's time to move on from this thread. In honor of all our wonderful time on these 23 pages... let's have a laugh on the things to come...

We have conventions, VP picks, and a general election all coming soon... so stay tuned folks!

[onbekende]

Lysistrata, on 07 May 2016 - 10:52, said:

 

onbekende, on 07 May 2016 - 09:10, said:

So now finding some money in the middle of a department restructuring is corruption?

It's not that simple. The IRS was caught targeting Obama's political enemies... this is not a maybe, it's a fact. The House of Representatives cut their funding as punishment. Koskinen cried poverty, he could not run the agency on a shoestring budget, he would have to cut personnel and slash services... "OMG! The American taxpayers will SUFFER!"

 

Low and behold, under such anemic cash flow, they were able to afford to hire between 600 and 700 new enforcement employees... which means he was lying... again.

 

meh 600 à 700 for an USA sized department? They cry understaffness here with a higher number. Your Pentagon is crying for $$ aswell but just this week I noticed a new unmanned floating boat being christened, shall we knoose up some generals aswell?

 

yes the IRC hit mostly republican affilated groups, most of the Tea Party association which you could even call a rather new and mostly splinter side. Halfly then its understandable that they would go for all the new faces on there radar, halfly its blatant "we don't have a Rep president, lets go hunt some Rep" mentality I'd imagine is rampant in your two-party system. Give me odds on Trump (or any Rep) becomming President, Sanders folks splintering and forming thousands of likewise groups and some part of the IRC going after all those new faces >_>.

[Rhizoctonia]

The Republican Party made my vote easy. With Trump getting the nomination, I am officially done with them. I voted with the party the past two elections when I wasn't a huge fan of the nominees, and done doing it anymore. Though it wasn't just Trump, I'd Cruz got the nomination I would likely feel the same way, maybe a slight chance I'd vote for Cruz, but nonetheless I wanted neither of them. And no, I won't be voting from Clinton either, my money and support will be going to the Libertarian Party. The GOP is sinking ship, and Trump is leading it. There is so many friends, family, acquaintances that basically said they cannot vote for Trump. Likely not voting or voting 3rd party. I think that's going to be what we see nationwide. I expect some of the lowest Republican turn out, and many normally Republican and even democrat votes being split between :rd parties.

[The Warrior]

I will feel a lot better about Trump if he makes a good VP choice. Either way, I have to vote against Clinton. She is terrible.

[Canik]

https://www.facebook.com/BestOfInstaAndVineVideos/videos/267309976948751/?pnref=story

Bad as Hillary may be, I'm not sure Trump is any better. He's been rich his whole life. He's done many things that are supposedly against his principles for profit and personal gain. He's probably not far from being in the 1% himself. Now he'll prioritize principle and focus on helping everyone else purely out of the kindness of his heart? Heh, okay, sure. xD

[The Warrior]

I don't pretend to like Trump. I liked three other Republican candidates more than him and voted for another one of them in my primary. As much as I don't care for Trump, I like Clinton a LOT less. She is as corrupt as they come and shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the Oval Office. If Trump makes a good VP choice I will be more at ease when voting.

[Canik]

If only Bernie Sanders could be his VP. I'd vote for a Trump/Sanders ticket over Hillary/whoever.

[Lysistrata]

The Warrior, on 07 May 2016 - 23:03, said:

I don't pretend to like Trump. I liked three other Republican candidates more than him and voted for another one of them in my primary. As much as I don't care for Trump, I like Clinton a LOT less. She is as corrupt as they come and shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the Oval Office. If Trump makes a good VP choice I will be more at ease when voting.

His VP pick is the most important decision, and will make or break his run. Many are speculating about who this will be. Will he choose a female Hispanic Governor? John Kasich for Ohio? Marco Rubio for Hispanics and Florida? Newt Gingrich for political and conservative cred? The list goes on and on.

 

Donald Trump is not a stupid man... he knows how important this is, and I don't believe he's gonna play this in a conventional way. His goal is to crush the Democrats Blue Wall, and attack the Electoral map that will decide who the President is. The way to do that is with overwhelming popularity. I still believe Rudi Giuliani is his ace in the hole. He's immensely popular, a life long New Yorker, was at one time considered the odds on favorite to be President, and has been his friend for 25 years. It's such an obvious choice to me.