Hey Rightwingers: why should I believe Trump even has a basic understanding of the following issues:

[Clementine]

1) Foreign policy; specifically the complex nature of the Middle East

2) Economics (not the same as business although the argument could easily be made he doesn't understand business either)

3) How the US government even works

4) Immigration. Him coming up with the mentally lazy solution of deporting all illegals says nothing about his knowledge of statistics or the current law of it in this country.

Now keep in mind that regardless of what you think of the character of Obama or Hillary, nothing changes the fact that their education backgrounds are in law and public policy. That gives us evidence of their knowledge of these subjects.

Why should any of us believe that you or any other Dem has an understanding of those issues?

Obama has helped the radicals in the Middle East. The radicals have advanced nicely under his presidency.

Libs think government's function is to control people and have equal outcomes instead of freedom and equal opportunity. Their meddling in the private sector is what created much of the problem. Working people are punished and special interest groups are given special treatment.

We have immigration laws, like every other country. We've also got the worst record when it comes to enforcing them. We've always accepted legal immigrants and the majority of citizens understand that limits on that is in our best interests. Illegal immigration is not. Even dingbat Chris Matthews understands that better than Obama and the libs. They've let this problem go so long that now we have anchor babies and others who grow up with a resentment toward America for not granting their illegal parents amnesty. And that is the only thing they care about when they vote. Hillary wanted open borders and a one world government. It's clear she knows nothing about this country, or at least doesn't care about it. She had her own aspirations that always took top priority.

An education in something is only as good as the teacher. Being educated is not the same as being intelligent. Hillary majored in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and no one knows what the hell Obama majored in.

Hillary clearly doesn't understand the importance of national security or what it takes to protect it. She proved that with her reckless handling of info during her stint as Sec of State.

Obama is better than Hillary, yet he ignored immigration laws and bought in unvetted refugees, both of which pose risks to Americans.

Being lawyers, they are both more experienced in finding loopholes in laws to get what they want and sometimes just outright lying. Whether it's Hillary getting a rapist off with a light sentence or Obama getting money on behalf some minorities in a class action lawsuit that started off legit, but became a big giveaway to thousands of minorities who weren't farmers, it's clear that their main talent is playing the legal system, something that only benefits themselves and those they choose to represent. Neither is capable of representing an entire country since both are conditioned to favoring certain people and protecting them while going after others.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...3/25/trouble-in-pigford-reparations-paradise/

 

[Penelope]

1) Foreign policy; specifically the complex nature of the Middle East

2) Economics (not the same as business although the argument could easily be made he doesn't understand business either)

3) How the US government even works

4) Immigration. Him coming up with the mentally lazy solution of deporting all illegals says nothing about his knowledge of statistics or the current law of it in this country.

Now keep in mind that regardless of what you think of the character of Obama or Hillary, nothing changes the fact that their education backgrounds are in law and public policy. That gives us evidence of their knowledge of these subjects.

Quite honestly I don't give a fuck what you believe or not. You lost asshole, deal with it.

Lol you're just butthurt you can't justify winning.

Looking at everything Hillary has done justifies Trump's win pretty easily.

Bannon, Kelly Anne Conway, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Gen Flynn, Giuliano, and I can name a few more,
helped him, by demoralizing Clinton and also Trump won by the skin of his teeth.

 

[Penelope]

1) Foreign policy; specifically the complex nature of the Middle East

2) Economics (not the same as business although the argument could easily be made he doesn't understand business either)

3) How the US government even works

4) Immigration. Him coming up with the mentally lazy solution of deporting all illegals says nothing about his knowledge of statistics or the current law of it in this country.

Now keep in mind that regardless of what you think of the character of Obama or Hillary, nothing changes the fact that their education backgrounds are in law and public policy. That gives us evidence of their knowledge of these subjects.

Quite honestly I don't give a fuck what you believe or not. You lost asshole, deal with it.

Lol you're just butthurt you can't justify winning.

Looking at everything Hillary has done justifies Trump's win pretty easily.

There were other candidates....

And I'd have been fine with any of them, to varying degrees, so long as the winner wasn't Hillary.

Why is it a jealousy thing?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

1) Foreign policy; specifically the complex nature of the Middle East

2) Economics (not the same as business although the argument could easily be made he doesn't understand business either)

3) How the US government even works

4) Immigration. Him coming up with the mentally lazy solution of deporting all illegals says nothing about his knowledge of statistics or the current law of it in this country.

Now keep in mind that regardless of what you think of the character of Obama or Hillary, nothing changes the fact that their education backgrounds are in law and public policy. That gives us evidence of their knowledge of these subjects.

Law was written and invented by man. maybe its time to reevaluate the intent of those laws.
Im not sure exactly what you mean when you suggest that deporting illegals would not be congruent with our current immigration laws, or did I as I sometimes do misinterpret what you were saying? ( number 4 on your list)

 

[BluesLegend]

OP Trump is a billionaire businessman who does business all over the world. When you have gained even 1/10th of his experience then you can talk shit.

 

[SavannahMann]

You don't have to. You are free to believe the propaganda. The problem is that the propaganda is laughable. Every single Republican is always the dumbest one ever according to that propaganda. Each one supposedly makes the one before look smart by comparison, the one before of course having been the dumbest one ever until this one showed up. The problem with that scale is that a generation ago, the Republicans should have been reduced to proposing people who have to wear shoes with Velcro closures since they were too dumb to learn to tie a bow. By now, any Republican would be so idiotic that they couldn't walk past a window without an overwhelming urge to lick it.

Now oddly, they aren't wearing Velcro shoes, nor are they constantly licking windows. So where does the propaganda come from? It's a premise that is flawed before it begins. The idea is that if you don't agree with me, you must be an idiot. Obviously this premise is flawed.

Disagreements are what make things better. We debate the issue, which means we consider the issue. If we debate the issue honestly, then we are able to examine the question from every possible angle. But so many, obviously including you, don't want to examine the issue from any angle except the one that you see it from.

So why should I try and argue the point when you won't even consider the alternative points of view? Why should I bother to try and expand your knowledge when your mind is already closed to any alternative. In many ways, the modern Democratic Party is most like the Catholic Church during the inquisition. There is accepted thought, and belief, according to doctrine. Any thoughts, or beliefs outside of doctrine is to be hammered down until those who would dare consider anything but approved doctrine will never dare to speak it.

Trying to open the mind of a modern Democratic Party supporter is for all intents and purposes, impossible. Despite demonstrating time and time again that the premise behind the beliefs are flawed, the modern Democratic Party supporter is unwilling to admit that the approved thoughts and ideals are wrong.

Take the economy that you question Trump's knowledge on. Trump has come out in opposition to demonstrably flawed trade deals, and somehow this is bad for the economy. Yet, no one can explain why it's good that people lose their manufacturing jobs to second and third world nations. Why is it good that American workers are being reduced to a service industry economy?

I've heard that Trade spreads democracy. Nonsense. China is now cracking down on those who dare to challenge the power of the state in Hong Kong. China's been a trading partner for decades, yet somehow civil rights just haven't taken hold. Workers in Haiti who sew the Levi's jeans that many people wear can't afford to buy anything that comes off the assembly line, so the argument that trade improves the quality of life for the poor in those nations is laid bare as a lie by the fact that the workers at that factory struggle to afford a little food on their eighty cents an hour paycheck.

We're rapidly running out of reasons to continue the current trend of more free trade with second and third world nations. Yet, this empirical evidence is rejected. I admire people who have theories. I like them. I like people to think and consider and be willing to try new things. However, we seem to be skipping the next step of testing a theory. That is examining the results to see if the results match predictions. Without that, we can't make an honest assessment and consider any changes that the theory may require. We refuse to admit that no plan survives contact with implementation. We proceed as if the plan is perfect, and if it didn't turn out right, it's not because of any flaw in the plan, or the underlying premise, but because others sabotaged the plan's implementation.

Sometimes the theories are wrong. Sometimes the truth is the best we can do is scrap it and start over.

 

[Penelope]

OP Trump is a billionaire businessman who does business all over the world. When you have gained even 1/10th of his experience then you can talk shit.

So he says, he does have a loan from China. Most of his stuff overseas just has his name on it. Also his history as a good businessman is not good.

 

[BluesLegend]

OP Trump is a billionaire businessman who does business all over the world. When you have gained even 1/10th of his experience then you can talk shit.

So he says, he does have a loan from China. Most of his stuff overseas just has his name on it. Also his history as a good businessman is not good.

You're butthurt is noted lib, tissue?

 

[Billy000]

Well no you haven't broken down any specifics about either one of their policies. For Obama, What was the SC case ruling regarding his immigration plan?

Did you not read the link? She has no specifics to break down. You really aren't reading my posts.

The Supreme Court’s Rebuke to Obama’s Amnesty
BREAKING: Obama's Executive Action on Illegal Immigration Just Took A Hit
Obama's immigration plan dealt big blow by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com

Ok finally some specifics!

Okay you explained the Supreme Court ruling. You still havent given me specifics on anything else.

It's rather awkward to have to spoonfeed what's supposedly a grown man the data from links I've handed him on a silver platter, and explained to him for five pages straight.

Directly from the website I linked you. She wants to defend what the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional and claims it's completely within the president's power. This in and of itself proves the points I made on the first page, all at once.

Um no. You've provided no connection to Hillary whatsoever on this case. What exactly does Hillary want in regards to this case?

Oh my goodness, you have just proven you didn't click my links. It's directly from her web site, you fopdoodle.

Okay my mistake. I missed that you said this earlier in another context. Okay this is what Hillary wanted. Overall I don't see it as something that says anything about his or her judgement on the issue. Presidents challenge the Supreme Court all the time and lose. There's always been precedence for that for presidents. It doesn't necessarily mean they have overall ignorance of constructional law. How can any one person?

 

[Billy000]

Is he gone?

He should have stopped on the first page... he literally could have found this information within 30 seconds with a google search... or... you know... watching the debates... or researching his candidate AT ALL. I think my IQ dropped from tonight's interactions with Billy.

Lol you people try way too hard.

 

[Penelope]

OP Trump is a billionaire businessman who does business all over the world. When you have gained even 1/10th of his experience then you can talk shit.

So he says, he does have a loan from China. Most of his stuff overseas just has his name on it. Also his history as a good businessman is not good.

You're butthurt is noted lib, tissue?[/QUO

OP Trump is a billionaire businessman who does business all over the world. When you have gained even 1/10th of his experience then you can talk shit.

So he says, he does have a loan from China. Most of his stuff overseas just has his name on it. Also his history as a good businessman is not good.

You're butthurt is noted lib, tissue?

No my butt does not hurt.

 

[Penelope]

OP Trump is a billionaire businessman who does business all over the world. When you have gained even 1/10th of his experience then you can talk shit.

So he says, he does have a loan from China. Most of his stuff overseas just has his name on it. Also his history as a good businessman is not good.

You're butthurt is noted lib, tissue?

I was unable to edit my post , no my but does not hurt at all. The last time the Pubs had all 3 was in the 20's and in 1929 we got the depression. His exp in stiffing small companies and suing everyone, no thanks. Bankruptcy exp, no thanks. Not impressed.

 

[blackhawk]

People have seen the result of Obama and Clintons experience and understanding of issues they were so unimpressed they were willing to take a chance onTrump.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Damn. Billy, this is getting painful to watch. You're asking her for specifics in hopes she can't provide them, and she's providing them.

You lose.

I gave her credit on Obama's ruling. So far she hasn't given any other substantial information.

Lmfao Billy got smoke by a 15 year old girl

To funny

.

 

[Mac1958]

1) Foreign policy; specifically the complex nature of the Middle East

2) Economics (not the same as business although the argument could easily be made he doesn't understand business either)

3) How the US government even works

4) Immigration. Him coming up with the mentally lazy solution of deporting all illegals says nothing about his knowledge of statistics or the current law of it in this country.

Now keep in mind that regardless of what you think of the character of Obama or Hillary, nothing changes the fact that their education backgrounds are in law and public policy. That gives us evidence of their knowledge of these subjects.

I didn't vote for Trump, but the answer to your questions is pretty obvious.

Not much, but the role of a leader in the business world is to hire people who can most effectively execute your macro vision and manage them.

Bill Gates says the smartest business moves he's made have been the people he has hired.

You don't have to like that answer, you can reasonably argue that the government is not a business, but it is the answer.
.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1) Foreign policy; specifically the complex nature of the Middle East

2) Economics (not the same as business although the argument could easily be made he doesn't understand business either)

3) How the US government even works

4) Immigration. Him coming up with the mentally lazy solution of deporting all illegals says nothing about his knowledge of statistics or the current law of it in this country.

Now keep in mind that regardless of what you think of the character of Obama or Hillary, nothing changes the fact that their education backgrounds are in law and public policy. That gives us evidence of their knowledge of these subjects.

Quite honestly I don't give a fuck what you believe or not. You lost asshole, deal with it.

Lol you're just butthurt you can't justify winning.

Looking at everything Hillary has done justifies Trump's win pretty easily.

There were other candidates....

And I'd have been fine with any of them, to varying degrees, so long as the winner wasn't Hillary.

But then everyone knows the others didn't stand a chance in hell, because of the system. And nothing changes if the system doesn't change.

 

[OKTexas]

1) Foreign policy; specifically the complex nature of the Middle East

2) Economics (not the same as business although the argument could easily be made he doesn't understand business either)

3) How the US government even works

4) Immigration. Him coming up with the mentally lazy solution of deporting all illegals says nothing about his knowledge of statistics or the current law of it in this country.

Now keep in mind that regardless of what you think of the character of Obama or Hillary, nothing changes the fact that their education backgrounds are in law and public policy. That gives us evidence of their knowledge of these subjects.

Quite honestly I don't give a fuck what you believe or not. You lost asshole, deal with it.

Lol you're just butthurt you can't justify winning.

Looking at everything Hillary has done justifies Trump's win pretty easily.

Bannon, Kelly Anne Conway, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Gen Flynn, Giuliano, and I can name a few more,
helped him, by demoralizing Clinton and also Trump won by the skin of his teeth.

Poor baby, should we take a look at who denigrated Trump?

Current and 4, count them, 4 former POTUS.
Current and at least 2 former FLOTUS.
Current and at least 4 former SOS.
ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, AP, ...............................
Should I go on cry baby?

And he still kicked your collective asses.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, we all asked the same questions regarding Obama.. and the left's response was to call us racists.

Too damn funny...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

OP Trump is a billionaire businessman who does business all over the world. When you have gained even 1/10th of his experience then you can talk shit.

So he says, he does have a loan from China. Most of his stuff overseas just has his name on it. Also his history as a good businessman is not good.

You're butthurt is noted lib, tissue?

I was unable to edit my post , no my but does not hurt at all. The last time the Pubs had all 3 was in the 20's and in 1929 we got the depression. His exp in stiffing small companies and suing everyone, no thanks. Bankruptcy exp, no thanks. Not impressed.

The economy during that time was mildly recessionary, the Depression didn't start until Franky created it. Let's also not forget that Woodrow Wilson did enough damage in the first place to cause Republicans to have all three, with his Socialist whackjob policies. Just goes to show that it takes two and a half Republicans to fix a Socialist's mess, and just one Socialist to pull everything back into the toilet.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Did you not read the link? She has no specifics to break down. You really aren't reading my posts.

The Supreme Court’s Rebuke to Obama’s Amnesty
BREAKING: Obama's Executive Action on Illegal Immigration Just Took A Hit
Obama's immigration plan dealt big blow by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com

Ok finally some specifics!

Okay you explained the Supreme Court ruling. You still havent given me specifics on anything else.

It's rather awkward to have to spoonfeed what's supposedly a grown man the data from links I've handed him on a silver platter, and explained to him for five pages straight.

Directly from the website I linked you. She wants to defend what the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional and claims it's completely within the president's power. This in and of itself proves the points I made on the first page, all at once.

Um no. You've provided no connection to Hillary whatsoever on this case. What exactly does Hillary want in regards to this case?

Oh my goodness, you have just proven you didn't click my links. It's directly from her web site, you fopdoodle.

Okay my mistake. I missed that you said this earlier in another context. Okay this is what Hillary wanted. Overall I don't see it as something that says anything about his or her judgement on the issue. Presidents challenge the Supreme Court all the time and lose. There's always been precedence for that for presidents. It doesn't necessarily mean they have overall ignorance of constructional law. How can any one person?

She's defending Obama's unconstitutional AMNESTY, and thinks it's within the rights of the president to BREAK THE LAW. I already explained how amnesty is an absolutely stupid idea, and she's defending using executive orders to bypass the different branches of government, the Constitution, and law. The fact that you seem to think this is okay to ANY degree only shows that you're in the same boat as them.

Defending this is also defending Obama's 64 Constitutional violations by extension.