|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> 2016 Presidential Debate Thread /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1474841906 Message started by pg on 09/25/16 at 15:18:26 |
|
Title: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by pg on 09/25/16 at 15:18:26 1) Monday, Sep 26th, 8:00 pm Wow, 90 minutes, standing, no long breaks, rumors of Slick Willy's mistresses in the front row. How did this unfold? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/25/16 at 15:31:21 Slick Willy's mistresses in the front row. How did this unfold? Dude,, you DID that on purpose, right? Blouses and skirts, unfolding, such a mental picture,, Ohhh,, geee, maybe it's not such a nice picture Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia, the free ... Wikipedia › wiki › Bill_Clinton_sexual_... Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001), has been publicly accused by several women of sexual misconduct. Juanita Broaddrick has accused Clinton of rape; Kathleen Willey has ... As part of Paula Jones sexual harassment case Dolly Kyle (formerly Dolly ... Top stories Trump threatens to bring Gennifer Flowers to debate The Hill - 1 day ago Juanita Broaddrick would confront Hillary if Trump invited her to debate The American Mirror - 10 hours ago Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick want to come to debate Daily Mail - 4 hours ago Trump threatens to bring Gennifer Flowers to debate The Hill - 1 day ago Images VIEW ALL Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton Image result for gennifer flowers raped Bill Clinton View all Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia › wiki › Juanita_Broaddrick Juanita Broaddrick is a former nursing home administrator from Arkansas. She alleged in 1999 that United States President Bill Clinton had raped her .... When contacted about the issue, Gennifer Flowers, who Clinton admitted to a sexual ... Bill Clinton Sex Allegations: 17 Claims of Rape & Affairs | Heavy.com heavy.com › news › 2016/05 › bill-clint... May 23, 2016 - Bill Clinton's history with women has been made a ... gennifer flowers, gennifer flowers clinton. Hillary Clinton Enabled Bill Clinton's Abuse of Women By Her Own ... National Review › article › hillary-clinto... May 27, 2016 - (This is what Clinton had advised Flowers to do in a taped ... women for him, and one of the procured was Paula Jones. ... truly grappled with is Juanita Broaddrick's charge of rape. Will Today's Women Believe Bill Clinton's Rape Accusers? - The ... The Daily Beast › articles › 2016/05/23 May 23, 2016 - Paula Jones and others who accused Bill Clinton of assault were dismissed and derided in the '90s. Trump threatens to bring Gennifer Flowers to debate | TheHill The Hill › ballot-box › presidential-races 1 day ago - In a statement to the Huffington Post, Broaddrick, who accused Bill Clinton of rape, said she hasn't ... Rap Sheet: The Women Who Claim to Be Victims of Bill and Hillary ... Breitbart › big-government › 2015/12/31 Dec 31, 2015 - Nevertheless, Bill Clinton is the man the DC Media wants as ... Gubernatorial campaign volunteer who said Mr. Clinton raped her during a ... Paula Jones – Sexual Harrassment,. Believe All Victims?: A Primer on Bill Clinton's Groping and Rape ... Vice › broadly › en_us › article › believe... Jun 8, 2016 - Gennifer Flowers, a former TV reporter, said she had a twelve-year affair with Clinton and t Ohhh, Trump is just SO much Wurserer! |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by Serowbot on 09/25/16 at 18:18:45 I know how this works,.. this ain't my first rodeo... Hillary supporters will see her win,.. and Trump supporters will see him win... ...and we all tune in, in the hopes of a total train wreck... ..and even then,... Hillary supporters will see her win,.. and Trump supporters will see him win... Only voters that care watch debates, and they have all made up their minds months ago... Kinda' funny really... :-? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/25/16 at 19:27:03 Funny how smart you are. I don't know who will win. I even already said how he can lose. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by raydawg on 09/26/16 at 03:54:27 6274637E66737E65110 wrote:
You mean Hillary could, should, have been out there stumping instead of prepping..... Where she might have really drummed up new supports/voters? Gee, did you tell her this, or, are you just trying to convince yourself not to worry? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by pg on 09/26/16 at 04:29:39 3D2E362B2E38284F0 wrote:
Yes, with her health issues and irradiate comments her support on the fringes is starting to "crawfish." Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/26/16 at 18:26:04 so far, Trump is all flustered, raising his voice, hasn't said anything new Clinton, who hasn't had the 24 hour news networks attention every minute, now starting to make some valid and attractive points Trump's losing what little he had |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/26/16 at 18:47:37 she's a much better public speaker and a politician. What she says to the weak sounds good. However, go back in time and Obama sounded the same, Mitt Romney sounded the same, Kerry sounded the same. Nothing Clinton says will come about, but it sure sounds good. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/26/16 at 18:48:43 So far no one's votes going to change. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/26/16 at 18:54:09 4F7D7A6B6C7D6A55796A73180 wrote:
idk, the more I hear from Clinton, the more I might vote for here instead of Johnson |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/26/16 at 18:55:30 073532232435221D31223B500 wrote:
for awhile there Trump was just yelling, interupting and bloviating, now he's regained some composure |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/26/16 at 18:57:52 she's not saying anything different than obama, romney. kerry etc... They all say what Hilary is saying but as we all know, 99% of what she says will never happen. younhave to know that. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/26/16 at 19:05:25 on the scoreboard, she's got a blowout win, 99 to 3. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by MnSpring on 09/26/16 at 19:09:48 162423323524330C20332A410 wrote:
So, How many people, 'Believe', her Lies? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by old.indian on 09/26/16 at 19:10:34 Neither my Medicare NOR my VA covers fertilizer burn, so I'm avoiding the whole thing...... |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/26/16 at 19:13:38 785B6645475C5B52350 wrote:
So, How many people, 'Believe', her Lies? [/quote] 99% of what Trump says will never happen either, how many people are believing his lies? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/26/16 at 19:18:58 I disagree, I think some of his ideas are more likely to be enacted. especially border control, immigration. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/26/16 at 19:25:14 053730212637201F332039520 wrote:
really?? cause, those are two of his more far fetched ideas, there will be no wall. the budget will not be reworked to allow ICE to do a better job. the money isn't there and with his tax cuts, it won't be there, but I guess since Trump is king of debt, we could go that way with it |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/26/16 at 19:29:05 I'm surprised to hear this but according to Frank Lutz real time undecided votes monitoring, undecideds are falling for Trump. If that's true, it's because people hear Hilary and all they can think of is here's just another politician. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/26/16 at 19:32:34 I TRIED, I just can't listen to her. His first answer What did I tell you? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/26/16 at 19:38:30 2E3137302D2A1B2B1B23313D76440 wrote:
that's your failing, you are unreasonably biased, you only gather facts and opinions that agree with you |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/26/16 at 19:40:11 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
and yet "Frank Luntz tweets that by a 17-3 margin, his focus group believes Hillary Clinton is winning the debate. birther question “destroyed him.”" |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/26/16 at 19:47:55 I don't know who those 3 people are..... I'd say it was 20 to zero. But that might not mean much. She's completely unlikable by more people than he is. The voters of in those working class states like PA, OH lok past his flaws. They rely on others to "explain" what Trump means. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by MnSpring on 09/26/16 at 19:59:12 5C7F6364516264796364100 wrote:
Really, REALLY ????? Where are the, "FACTS", that the, 'wanna be Queen', did NOT LIE ? Lets see, 'LIES', (PROVEN, ABSOLUTE FACTS), vs, 'Bravado'. HMMMM, Which will it be, Hmmmmm. Get me some, 'kool-aid', ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/26/16 at 20:10:06 However, if it were Jeb, Ctuz, Rubio or whomever, they migjt have won this debate but they'd be losing by 10 points. Trump is the only one who can beat her. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by Serowbot on 09/26/16 at 21:19:56 Trump sniffed 379 times... he's dying... it's cancer... ...or maybe a brain tumour... :-? Didn't anyone else see that?... Sniff, sniff, sniff... sniff, sniff... ..maybe Ebola... :-? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/27/16 at 05:04:07 Maybe he's got some rare, exotic for of Ebola or something.... Wait, the Clinton Foundation funds research into that so they probably are working on a cure......oh wait, who am I kidding, they don't fund stuff like that. They work on deals between Saudi Princes..... |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/27/16 at 07:44:06 2C0F321113080F06610 wrote:
Really, REALLY ????? Where are the, "FACTS", that the, 'wanna be Queen', did NOT LIE ? Lets see, 'LIES', (PROVEN, ABSOLUTE FACTS), vs, 'Bravado'. HMMMM, Which will it be, Hmmmmm. Get me some, 'kool-aid', ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] you want it Jim Jones style?? since you seem to be falling for the cult of personality that is Trump |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by MnSpring on 09/27/16 at 08:27:01 1734282F1A292F32282F5B0 wrote:
Don't want no 'kool-aid', for my self. While I have stated I am voting for Trump, (Because I believe he is the LESSER, of two evils). I am NOT, in the Trump, 'Cult'. And MOST CERTAINLY, NOT, in the Clinton 'CULT'. Like some people are. Gee, think I have said that, a time or two ?? ;D ;) |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/27/16 at 08:38:22 2D0E1215201315081215610 wrote:
that's your failing, you are unreasonably biased, you only gather facts and opinions that agree with you[/quote] No,I just can't listen to that bitches voice and lies. Whatever BIAS I have is hers to own. Not seeing her for what she is is a failing beyond description. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by raydawg on 09/27/16 at 10:16:40 Look kids, trump proved all he is good at is impersonating don rickles. Hillary proved she can still play the game. I won't vote for her, but I don't think for a second she"ll lie on the sword of the democrat party, either. She cares about herself more than any so called ideology. If no leaks or fainting come her way, she should win. Then it will get real interesting as she divides the spoils amongst herself ;D |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/27/16 at 11:21:18 4E6D71764370766B7176020 wrote:
really?? cause, those are two of his more far fetched ideas, there will be no wall. the budget will not be reworked to allow ICE to do a better job. the money isn't there and with his tax cuts, it won't be there, but I guess since Trump is king of debt, we could go that way with it[/quote] Myopic mentality. Corporations are TAXED 35% in America. They LEFT because of the cost of doing business HERE, Nafta made other things attractive. Unless people are willing to Look at what the business environment WAS LOOK at what Changed Understand WHY jobs left Then the BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN will look foolish to you, While the BILLIONAIRE crooked politician will keep looking good. Why does America seem determined to continue in a direction that has been painful? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/27/16 at 13:03:56 5A454344595E6F5F6F57454902300 wrote:
really?? cause, those are two of his more far fetched ideas, there will be no wall. the budget will not be reworked to allow ICE to do a better job. the money isn't there and with his tax cuts, it won't be there, but I guess since Trump is king of debt, we could go that way with it[/quote] Myopic mentality. Corporations are TAXED 35% in America. They LEFT because of the cost of doing business HERE, Nafta made other things attractive. Unless people are willing to Look at what the business environment WAS LOOK at what Changed Understand WHY jobs left Then the BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN will look foolish to you, While the BILLIONAIRE crooked politician will keep looking good. Why does America seem determined to continue in a direction that has been painful?[/quote] thanks for insulting me up front, means I can dismiss the rest of what you for what it is, DIVERSION. you didn't address that it's going to take MONEY to build a wall, to reinforce ICE, and Trump's economic plan is projected TO COST us JOBS therefore taxes. so therefore WE GO INTO DEBT but you want to talk about identifying with Billionaires... |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by pg on 09/27/16 at 16:16:36 1B3824231625233E2423570 wrote:
Please provide some links and or more data. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/27/16 at 18:15:13 Cutting corporate taxes decreases operating costs. That's gonna COST jobs? Even democrats aren't that stupid. You 're an independent! Independent of logic and rationale and basic sanity.. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/28/16 at 08:01:05 6176707C7363110 wrote:
Please provide some links and or more data. Best regards,[/quote] Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full Presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed tax reforms that would significantly reduce marginal tax rates for both individuals and businesses,increase standard deduction amounts to nearly four times current levels, limit or repeal some tax expenditures,repeal the individual and corporate alternative minimum taxes and the estate and gift taxes,and tax the profits of foreign subsidiaries of US companies in the year they are earned. The Tax Policy Center estimates the proposal would reduce federal revenue by $9.5trillion over its first decade and an additional $15.0trillion over the subsequent 10 years,before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects.1Most of the revenue loss would come from individual income tax cuts, but about a third would be from the reduction in the corporate income tax rate and the introduction of special rates on pass-through businesses. Economy.com https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf Conclusions Presidential candidates often put forward proposals that are as much political statements as firm policy positions. No one expects that their proposals will get through the legislative process and into law fully intact. But while the policy proposals put forward by candidates are generally well overstated, they are a statement on their philosophy and priorities. Mr. Trump’s economic policy proposals should be considered through this lens. He has suggested that he might be willing to bend his position on taxes and perhaps tariffs. He has even intimated that his policy statements are simply a negotiating stance— he is asking for a lot more up front than he ultimately expects to get. Having said this, what he is asking for is fiscally unsound. His tax and spending proposals will result in very large deficits and a much higher debt load. A future Congress may be able to rein in this profligacy, but it will not be easy, as there is a gulf between what he says he wants on taxes and spending and what it will take to make the budget arithmetic work. He is also very suspicious of globalization. His willingness to threaten higher tariffs on U.S. trading partners and his sharp criticism of major trade deals signal a reversal on the long-running expansion of U.S. trade and foreign investment. Requiring millions of undocumented immigrants to leave the country also signals less openness to the rest of the world. The upshot of Mr. Trump’s economic policy positions under almost any scenario is that the U.S. economy will be more isolated and diminished. the reality is, Trump's plan is only successful IF company's and rich people actually create jobs. however, I'm highly skeptical that they will, I bet they won't, at least not nearly enough. We have left this "job creation to make money" economy way behind. now you can create much more wealth and money via simple investing rather than hard work and job creation. Not only do you get more wealth with much less risk, you get tax breaks for investing rather than actually creating a company and going through all that hassle to create something that might create demand enough for you to hire people. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/28/16 at 08:05:28 382721263B3C0D3D0D35272B60520 wrote:
you seem to think a company that cutting costs will spread the wealth by increasing wages or hiring more people or something... no, they don't actually do that. the ONLY way jobs increase is if DEMAND for that product increases, cutting costs DOES NOT create jobs. it might, at best save a few jobs until the inevitable happens. cutting costs does NOTHING to spur growth or hiring you're buying some right wing trickle down BS, keep that trickle stuff to yourself |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by verslagen1 on 09/28/16 at 08:38:53 7F5C40477241475A4047330 wrote:
you seem to think a company that cutting costs will spread the wealth by increasing wages or hiring more people or something... no, they don't actually do that. the ONLY way jobs increase is if DEMAND for that product increases, cutting costs DOES NOT create jobs. it might, at best save a few jobs until the inevitable happens. cutting costs does NOTHING to spur growth or hiring you're buying some right wing trickle down BS, keep that trickle stuff to yourself[/quote] Ok, so he knows what demand is... but not how to create it. If it's a commodity, you create demand by dropping price. You can do that by dropping overhead... TAXES. But of course you're ok with increasing overhead by mandating $15/hr. If it's not a commodity, then you need to increase more esoteric qualities such as quality, appearance, etc. You can do that by training your employees or just hiring more skilled labor. Both increase costs. Or you invest in new tech that automates the process and give everyone the boot. Or you could invest in a politician and work a deal thru NAFTA or TPP and get some 3rd world labor. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/28/16 at 08:59:31 Manufacturing that WAS here has moved. They moved due to high taxes and regulations and the cost of maintaining recotds Proving Compliance. Reduce COST of doing business, making locating in America economically attractive, allow them to bring the trillions they have stashed overseas back, and WE will have jobs again. Every customer buying a product is paying the corporate taxes. The cost of doing business is included in the price of the product, else they go broke. There, polite, straightforward, rational. Now, rather than just declare how mean hearted businesses are, THINK, what do businesses Exist for? They are looking for a Need that they can provide the solution to and make a profit doing it. That's not Evil. The kid with a mower cutting grass on the weekend is doing Just that. The hedge funds and money making money types produce No Tangible products. I see them as parasites. Generally, gotta have stock brokers , etc, but multimillion dollar earnings going to people who are hurting the economy kinda pisses me off. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/28/16 at 09:41:48 When taxes and regulations cause the cost of my product to either go up or I lose money, then the cost goes up. If the taxes and regulations force me to raise the price above the Value to the poorest of my consumers, I lose sales, in order to maintain the necessary profit margin, I raise the price, alienating more consumers. Businesses Try to absorb as much of the increases as possible, in order to stay in business, just operating on a slimmer profit margin. We have an environment that is not business friendly. So, by extension, we have an environment that is not employee friendly. Those who accuse me of Supply side, trickle down economics have less time studying and understanding. I know that's true, because they won't look at anything that I've suggested. I'm not saying Fill the warehouse, customers will come. I'm saying Stop robbing the employers so we can manufacture HERE, instead of import so much. Before we had these great trade deals America was doing better. Still not being done Right, but less crappy than now. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/28/16 at 09:52:12 544750514E4345474C13220 wrote:
you seem to think a company that cutting costs will spread the wealth by increasing wages or hiring more people or something... no, they don't actually do that. the ONLY way jobs increase is if DEMAND for that product increases, cutting costs DOES NOT create jobs. it might, at best save a few jobs until the inevitable happens. cutting costs does NOTHING to spur growth or hiring you're buying some right wing trickle down BS, keep that trickle stuff to yourself[/quote] Ok, so he knows what demand is... but not how to create it. If it's a commodity, you create demand by dropping price. You can do that by dropping overhead... TAXES. But of course you're ok with increasing overhead by mandating $15/hr. If it's not a commodity, then you need to increase more esoteric qualities such as quality, appearance, etc. You can do that by training your employees or just hiring more skilled labor. Both increase costs. Or you invest in new tech that automates the process and give everyone the boot. Or you could invest in a politician and work a deal thru NAFTA or TPP and get some 3rd world labor.[/quote] why wouldn't you take the tax savings and invest in new tech to automate the whole thing and give everyone the boot?? guess what, still out of JOBS' oh and NAFTA had MAJORITY REPUBLICAN/conservative support, and was signed into law by G. H. W. Bush, not Clinton oh, and you can drop price anytime, with or without reduced costs, Telsa hasn't sold one vehicle at above cost YET. Amazon didn't make a profit for the first 10 years of it's existence, etc... smart businesses play the LONG game, but almost ALL businesses here only play the short game, quarterly earning reports to make Wall-Street and stock owners happy and to be clear, I'm not 100% sold on a minimum wage, $15 or otherwise, different regions have different cost of living, I am convinced that wages should be tied to the economy in more substantial ways, maybe via profit sharing or a tie to inflation or something rather and simple company/market whimsy. there's a LOT of variables, also, I don't think I said I was against cutting taxes for corporations, I just highly doubt the positive outcome that all the conservatives seem to think are a given, trickle down, DOES NOT WORK. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/28/16 at 10:03:24 I know all about the role Bush played. Again, please, I'm BEGGING YOU , PLEASE, stop pretending that I wouldn't put bush in same cell as the Clinton clan and Obama. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9] Clinton SIGNED IT INTO LAW, as a supporter. Would this be a good time to repeat Both sides are working for someone other than WE the People? When the manufacturers who left went to where savings were, they used people where it was more PROFITABLE. And where robotics made sense, they used that new technology. A car welded and painted robotically makes sense, if the technology is affordable. I can only explain so much typing. I really don't think you have any desire to understand. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/28/16 at 10:10:32 524D4B4C51566757675F4D410A380 wrote:
fine, but Trump isn't proposing that, he's proposing TARIFFS. He does have a plan to bring back trillions stashed overseas, but how effective that'll actually be is questionable. Why bring it back at all??? they don't need it here, or it'd be here regardless of cost. I don't think of companies as evil, but they are amoral, that is without morals. and that's really just how it is, how it always has been. so when we make rules to BENEFIT amoral behavior, you know, it doesn't sit the best. and I highly doubt that manufacturing is going to move back, regardless of tax rates, they've already invested in PLANTS with buildings, equipment, management infrastructure, infrastructure, bribes, etc.... they need to get that investment BACK before they're going to move AGAIN. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/28/16 at 10:17:09 5D4244435E5968586850424E05370 wrote:
oh, as a supporter... I see, I didn't say he didn't support it http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-18/news/1992353055_1_treaty-renegotiate-clinton Bush signs North American trade pact Clinton says he won't renegotiate December 18, 1992|By Gilbert A. Lewthwaite | Gilbert A. Lewthwaite,Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- President Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement yesterday, and his successor-in-waiting Bill Clinton immediately announced that he would not seek the treaty's renegotiation. I'm totally fine with them BOTH being culpable but no one deserves to be in a Cell. via our REPRESENTATIVE government we are all to blame, corruption in Washington IS NOT NEW, yet we all keep voting for it. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/28/16 at 11:10:40 Hiring an accountant who embezzles money doesn't make the employer at fault. The accountant Presented himself as trustworthy and lied. Only the criminal is at fault for his criminal behavior. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/28/16 at 11:17:57 and I highly doubt that manufacturing is going to move back, regardless of tax rates, they've already invested in PLANTS with buildings, equipment, management infrastructure, infrastructure, bribes, etc.... they need to get that investment BACK before they're going to move AGAIN. What of the things you've mentioned had they not done Here, before they left? We CAN make moving back attractive. Only trump is saying anything about doing that. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by WebsterMark on 09/28/16 at 12:29:00 I heard an interesting comment yesterday. The main stream media takes Trumps comments literally, but don't take him seriously. Trump supporters take him seriously, but don't take his comments literally. I'd say that's true. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/28/16 at 13:02:41 605255444352457A56455C370 wrote:
his comments are so vague and open ended you really take them literally or seriously the lack of substance of his "policies" is amazing, Clinton comes with details and actual experience of how things get done, the only thing she can be attacked for is if you actually disagree with her plans, that's fine, we can have a discussion about that, but since Trump seems not to be able to understand her plans, all he has to go off of is her personality and character flaws, all of which he has in spades, I really, really don't understand how the family values conservative party elected him as their nominee |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/28/16 at 13:03:29 Spend time, listen to what people say. The left believe only they possess the intellectual capacity to grasp nuance, but seem unable to understand what someone is saying, preferring to hold them to the most narrow, literal interpretations, aaaaand I'm done. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by verslagen1 on 09/28/16 at 13:23:36 0B2834330635332E3433470 wrote:
The problem with HRC is all the baggage she's dragging, and each one has several skeletons in them. She is a professional politician. Which is why Trump is winning. People are sick of it. Lies, cut throat, and back stabbing, all with a sweet face :-? Trump maybe doing the same, but it's all out in the open. That is what people are responding to. People would rather vote for someone who can't lie, then one that can... expertly. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/28/16 at 13:39:03 6A796E6F707D7B79722D1C0 wrote:
The problem with HRC is all the baggage she's dragging, and each one has several skeletons in them. She is a professional politician. Which is why Trump is winning. People are sick of it. Lies, cut throat, and back stabbing, all with a sweet face :-? Trump maybe doing the same, but it's all out in the open. That is what people are responding to. People would rather vote for someone who can't lie, then one that can... expertly.[/quote] Trump is just the other side of Clinton's corruption, the buyer instead of the seller. He on the side of creating the demand for the corruption. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by LostArtist on 09/28/16 at 13:48:53 66797F7865625363536B79753E0C0 wrote:
well, whenever that person doesn't actually say much (like really, he can say 200 words and 160 are the exact same words), and doesn't elaborate on anything... what do you want? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/28/16 at 14:02:21 Alright, yeah, obviously trump is a bumbling idiot. He knows nothing about anything. You can believe what you want, vote for whatever, I'm not trying to change your operating system. I explained everything I could without writing a book. Anyone who believes MOTS is the way forward, don't vote for trump. If you're sick of the way things have been, vote for trump. What will change, how much, will it be better, no way to know, but if change is what you want, there is only one who is even offering it. He could kill America or save it. Hillary will not save America. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by MnSpring on 09/28/16 at 17:41:29 Did not watch it, ‘live’. No reason to waste my time. Tells. As in Poker. I Play Poker (Hobby). And a, ’Tell’ is when someone does something, (A action/movement, of the body, eyes, blood vessels, (in a woman with tight blouse, the nipples), etc., etc,) Then a, ‘result’, happens. (Bluffing, Winning with the Nutz, etc.) (Many people that play for a LIVING, are VERY hard to observe, ’tells’) (Hillary should NEVER play Poker) So I watched the debate, (Fast Speed, on the Net, SOUND, off) And, discovered Several, ’Tells’. Noted the time, on the video. Then went back, and played with sound on, to the, ’Tells’. Ray Charles, could have seen her, ’telling’ the Moderator, What to do, and when to do it. As to, the, internet, ‘Polls’. Gee the Conservative ones had Trump, winning. and the Liberal ones had, Hillary, winning. (GEE), What a Surprise ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by raydawg on 09/29/16 at 03:25:27 Dude..... what are my nipples telling you right now? :-* |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by verslagen1 on 09/29/16 at 07:29:19 4D5E465B5E48583F0 wrote:
Cross dressing or sex change? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/29/16 at 18:55:02 65467B585A41464F280 wrote:
Yeah, she needed to scratch her face Real Bad several times. |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by MnSpring on 09/29/16 at 19:20:50 0C2F3334013234293334400 wrote:
Hillery, we KNOW, she is corrupt to, ALL Ends, we have the FACTS, saying so. As verslagen1 said: " ... People would rather vote for someone who can't lie, then one that can... expertly That is 110 % True. Why we KNOW, Hillery is crooked as the day is long. We, 'Don't know', that Trump is. It is a, 'change'. Unlike the, 'change', promoted in the past, which was 'seen as the light', by the, Hillery voters of today. And exactly WHERE, did, THAT, "Change', get us ???????? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by MnSpring on 09/29/16 at 19:25:13 746B6D6A7770417141796B672C1E0 wrote:
LOL, Yea, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by Serowbot on 09/29/16 at 21:48:11 Trump never lies... :-? |
|
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Debate Thread Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/29/16 at 22:11:34 Everyone lies, Do these pants, The point you're desperately pretending to not get is what she was doing. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |