DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on March 29, 2016, 12:11:22 PM
-
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/why-donald-trump-cant-win-the-white-house/
I disagree that a Trump candidacy would be the end of the GOP. But the remains of the GOP would be too weak and loathsome to win for a very long time.
-
You mean the same Federalist source that says how Obama made Syria into an unfixable quagmire (http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/28/how-president-obama-made-syria-an-unfixable-quagmire/)? The same Federalist source that concludes how Cruz is right about policing Muslim neighborhoods (http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/23/ted-cruz-is-right-about-policing-muslim-neighborhoods/)? The same Federalist source that highlight's Socialism's bloody history (http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/15/socialisms-bloody-history-shows-millennials-should-think-twice-before-supporting-it/)? The same Federalist source that deduces Privilege theory is really a war on happy childhoods (http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/28/privilege-theory-is-a-war-on-happy-childhoods/)? The same Federalist source that destroys the notion of how good increasing the minimum wage is (http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/29/70-tries-after-seattle-raised-its-minimum-wage-i-still-cant-find-a-job/), using Seattle as an example?
I have to remember this, the next time you try refuting a point, simply by poo-pooing the source
-
Read the damned thing, sirs. This isn't about me.
-
Never claimed it was. Simply hystierical you citing the Federalist, when you routinely demean any and every conservative news source that dares run counter to your liberal template.
I'll do you one better....YOU read all the other links provided, then get back to us about how credible your "source" is as to how Trump can't win
-
The word better and you are as unrelated as puffins and Puffed Rice.
-
Transparent deflection. So, in other words, you've got nothing. You can't claim a source as credible to your line of reasoning, without giving it credibility for a plethora of areas that are completely contrary to your liberal blinders. Thank you for playing 8)
-
See Donald. Can Donald run? Yes, Donald can run.
See Scott Walker. Can Scott run? No, Scott cannot run. Scott needs money to run. No one will pay Scott to run.
Sit, Scott sit. Scott can sit.
Run. Donald, run. Will Donald win?
No, Donald will not win. Donald has money, but people loathe Donald.
See Mrs Donald, She is pretty, She is an import.
See Mrs Ted. She is not so pretty.
But people still hate Donald, and Donald cannot win.
-
....And again, thank you for playing 8)
-
You are the least creative creature on Planet Earth.
In elementary school, when they were doing artistic projects, you were no doubt the kid that sat in the back and ate the paste.
-
You mean like the amateur "See Donald Run"? Again, thank you for playing. Your ongoing inability to refute the point being made for all else to see, is indeed appreciated 8)
-
I respect the Federalist, but I disagree with this article.
This author gets repetitive and concentrates on the demographic that makes his point , but the chart marked "all voters" shows a very near tie between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
If this guy is right , the better the weather and the heavier the turnout the more we get a good contest with Trump getting near the winning numbers. This could be the exceptional election in which the Democrats are for once hoping for a light turnout.
Frankly ,I hold out a bit of hope still for a better candidate than Donald Trump. To me John Kasich speaks better and has a better résumé.
(This seems typical of me , to like best the one the public likes least.)
Fortunately the opposition isn't doing any better, because nobody knows who Bernie Sanders is and Hillary Clinton is much more famous for her negatives than for her (few) positives.
-
Trump has yet to turn over any tax returns, and he has scammed hundreds of people with bogus real estate and his bogus "university", There has never been anyone less qualified to be president than this egomaniac.
-
...outside of the current front runner on the Democrat side, that is
-
Hillary has never cheated anyone like Trump has.
-
She's simply been criminally irresponsible, corrupt, reckless, and grossly incompotent
-
Not like you have a single shard of evidence for any of that.
Of course she is a Democrat, likes to murder wee babes and wants to take your guns, Plus, she does not care if Adam and Steve have a marriage license.
-
The evidence is overwhelming, especially in her tenure as SoS
-
This is why Trump will win!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5_5T9y4gD4
-
Trump trails in nearly every poll going up against Clinton, but the Dems are hopefully counting on...get this...a small turn out, come Nov. The greater the turn out this go around, the greater chance Trump would win, since her negatives are just as bad, if not worse, than his. Nor is he the probe of an ongoing FBI investigation, and pending plausible indictment on Federal charges. We can add that to her resume' of "accomplishments" as well
-
Trump trails in nearly every poll going up against Clinton,
And Reagan trailed Carter in every poll.
Plus as implied she may not even be the nominee.
I think the Dem ticket may be Biden/Warren
Which would actually be a difficult ticket to beat.
-
Hillary has never cheated anyone like Trump has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy
Travelgate is one of my favorite examples of HRC treating people as disposable tools.
Because though the Whitehouse had a perfect right to hire anyone they wanted , Hillary gratuitously fabricated criminal charges which would have put innocent people in prison.
That is pretty cold and ruthless, does it count as cheating?
-
Sure does!
-
Nonsense. No one went to jail.
-
Neither did anyone under Trump
-
Nonsense. No one went to jail.
Not because Hillary did not try .
She is vicious , and this is not subjective, she has this and other incidents as proof.
-
You have no proof of anything, sirs.
Trump has never been in charge of any political entity. Ergo, nothing has ever been "under Trump".
-
Trump has been a CEO with thousands "under him". And just like Clinton, no went went to jail. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander
-
Hillary made her accusations in the open, which were later found to be untrue.
What needs proving?
-
Trump has never been any sort of political leader. He is just a huckster on a major ego trip.
-
Hard to understand...
Trump has never been any sort of political leader. He is just a huckster on a major ego trip.
Could you refine your definition of "political leader" such that it somehow excludes " huckster on a major ego trip"?
I really thought this was line three on the job description.
-
Trump[ has a feeble knowledge of US government and foreign policy and I do not trust that he would appoint competent people. I question that competent people could stand working for him.
He is a huckster who has conned a lot of people out of their money with his bogus university and condo deals.
-
I hope he is less stingy than my present boss.
-
He has already declared that he thinks Americans are overpaid.
He will not be president. I sure hope he doesn't.
-
He has already declared that he thinks Americans are overpaid.
He will not be president. I sure hope he doesn't.
What?
When did President Obama say this?
I know he thinks so because he has given one single raise to the civil service in seven years, and it was the minimum required by contract.
So I know he thinks so , but I didn't expect him to admit it.
-
Trump said that he thought Americans were overpaid, not Obama.
Congress votes on appropriations, blame them.
-
I'm an American, and Congress doesn't pay me
-
Plane works for the government, and Congress votes on his salary.
Strangely, it is not all about you.
-
You referred to Americans. I'm one of those. Strangely, you appear to have difficulty keeping up with what you say, yourself
-
What then ,does it matter who has been president for the last seven years?
-
Plane referred to his own salary being determined by the next president, This is true only in the sense that after Congress passes a budget the president can veto the bill.
Trump said that he thought that (1) Americans are overpaid and (2) the minimum wage should not be raised. So from that I suggest that perhaps Plane as a government employee, Trump might be unlikely to raise Plane's salary. On the other hand, Plane is a Vet, and Trump might raise his pension. It is true that President Trump would not control the salaries of ALL Americans, but I think it is safe to think that he might well oppose raising the salaries that is DOES control.
Not that I think there will be a President Trump.
-
Point being, YOU brought up Americans, of which I am one of them
You know what's amazing.....is how the left tries to paint conservatives as "anti-science", especially when it comes to Global warming (never mind all the scientific "studies" that have been debunked on the matter), but when it comes to the minimum wage, its almost like a religion to the left. Study, after study, after scientific study, that demonstrates the overt negative repercussions on both the economy and unemployment to precisely that group of folks the left declares that they're the champion of, are consistently ignored to emotionally proclaim how necessary raising the wage is, in the name of "justice". It's quite the entertaining folly
-
I am a vet , but like most vets I don't get a pension. That is for Vets that served more than twenty years so I only went a quarter of the way to earning a Pension.
The power of the Congress to administer funds is over when the funds are allocated to the executive , who hires and pays from the allocated funds.
This is an embarrassing situation for a government employee when the legislature and the executive are having a turf war or a game of chicken.
As it turns out, paying the employees is just one option.
Oh and my union?
Hardly involved.
-
You could become a shop foreman and make a difference.
Congress has a LOT MORE to do with exact salaries than you claim.
-
You could become a shop foreman and make a difference.
Congress has a LOT MORE to do with exact salaries than you claim.
Yes, or complete more education and become a scheduler, I have had such plans.
It is still a possibility, but I do not enjoy office work, I make things and I like to make things, I solve problems and I make new things.
If I ever manage to complete the engineering degree I have half done, that would be the best way forward for me, but even then I would not be as hands on as I am now, so I would miss this job.
but....
Becoming leadership in the civil service?
Oh, what have I ever done to you?