Seriously.....Can Anybody Really Imagine Donald Trump As President?

[kaz]

And again as I've been saying, that bow in the Republican quiver has run out. Decades of Republican controlled courts repeatedly rule for the left. John Roberts was the last bow you had left, and he went left for crony capitalism and government controlling our healthcare system. Supreme Court nominees don't do it anymore. We get nothing from Republicans nominating them

So, lets see if I get this. You would prefer SC justices appointed by Hillary Clinton?

Read much? How do you possibly get that out of what I said?

So the answer to you question is no, you don't get this.

I don't care between Bud Light and Miller Lite, they both suck. Oh, so you prefer Miller Lite!

sorry, but when you post anti-Trump, anti-GOP rants, the only logical conclusion is that you support HRC and the far left dems.

Yes, there are Republicans and Democrats. Not Republican is Democrat. Usually I have that discussion with liberals. Again cracking me up when you're comparing me to liberals ...

I'm neither, not sure why that's so complicated to you. BTW, most Republicans can actually grasp that

 

[kaz]

And again as I've been saying, that bow in the Republican quiver has run out. Decades of Republican controlled courts repeatedly rule for the left. John Roberts was the last bow you had left, and he went left for crony capitalism and government controlling our healthcare system. Supreme Court nominees don't do it anymore. We get nothing from Republicans nominating them

So, lets see if I get this. You would prefer SC justices appointed by Hillary Clinton?

Read much? How do you possibly get that out of what I said?

So the answer to you question is no, you don't get this.

I don't care between Bud Light and Miller Lite, they both suck. Oh, so you prefer Miller Lite!

Bud light and miller light are the same product in a different can.

Trump and Clinton are two completely different products.

Logical fallacy of equivocation.

My comment was regarding SC nominees, not overall. And in that subject, yeah, Republicans and Democrats are the same product in a different can

 

[Redfish]

there is one very significant difference. Bush loved the USA, Obama hates it.

I am not saying they are the same as people. I am saying they were the same as to their job performance. Do you really care if the guy beating you with a night stick in your jail cell is a nicer guy than the guy who beat you up last night?

I guess we just disagree on this. Bush made mistakes, but he did not have an agenda to bring down the USA. That's the difference.

I didn't disagree with that. I just don't really care why he brought us down. He spent like a drunk sailor, added numerous government agencies. Prescription drug welfare benefit to Medicare, the TSA, no child gets ahead, the $250 billion so called transportation bill Christmas tree, never vetoed a spending bill. He proposed budgets that grow government in every economic measure (GDP, inflation) BEFORE negotiating with the Democrats and not counting off budget spending like TARP and the wars. And speaking of the wars, he keeps getting us into more.

Oh, but he's on our side! Yeah, but I wish he wasn't ...

nice recitation of dem/lib talking points.

Wow, that kills any idea that you're conservative if I have to explain to you the incredible amount of money and government created by George W Bush. Now you've out lefted even Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who both criticized him for his excessive spending and creation of new bureaucracies. They said it was worth it because they supported the wars, but wow, you're a fiscal lib for sure if you didn't see the uber spending excesses

I never disagreed with you on Bush and his spending. My only point here is that Bush was a better human being than Obama and Bush loved the USA while Obama hates it.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[kaz]

Government taxes, tax structure and regulations are killing jobs. Repeating a lie that free trade harms the economy doesn't make it so. I'll believe my education and experience over you.

And again, you keep making sound like we are disagreeing on the fundamental point. I said Trump is anti-capitalist, anti-free trade. You are saying that is why you like him, not that I'm wrong

This country used tariffs for most of it's history to build up and retain industries. Formerly dirt poor Red China has been built on the loss of the US manufacturing job base. Now we have to buy stuff from them previously made in this country, and they have our dollars with which to buy our assets. Go Trump I say.

You are advocating 19th century economics. Do you want 19th century medicine too?

Why don't you just admit you're a liberal who wants Big Gubmint to redistribute wealth? You'll be intellectually honest if you do.

We already HAVE 19th century economics.

We are just playing the part of the various defeated nations that everyone else is making money off of.

Except we are doing it to ourselves.

What does that even mean? You just swallowed Trump talking points, didn't you?

And as a career management/management consultant in multinational companies, we don't need your help. America competes fine. Actually exceptionally. You're the ones who are trying to destroy jobs and wreck the economy. You just don't understand it

The Rust Belt Street disagrees.

Yeah, they probably do. The people's republic of Michigan was brought down by the greedy workers who wanted less work, easier work, and higher pay. Government on their behalf rammed it down the throats of the car companies. You'd have really shitty cars if government had prevented them from going offshore to escape the unions.

BTW, "kaz" is short for my home town, Kalamazoo ... Michigan ...

 

[Redfish]

Allowing our rivals to use unfair trade to fuck US is not conservatism.

Nor is it "Free TRade".

You people repeat that empty mantra endlessly. Just like Obamabots love to repeat empty phrases. What does it even mean?

And there is no alternative to "free" trade. Free means we (American business) decides. When you alter that, you empower government to decide for us. And the worst possible word to government is "fair" anything

sorry Kaz, but it seems that you are the one here who doesn't get it. The other countries are not playing fair on trade, to our detriment. We can either find ways to make them play fair, or we can play the same games against them. Right now we are doing neither and our negative trade balance is hurting American jobs.

Again, you keep repeating the mantra they aren't playing fair, but you don't back it up.

And anyway this is a strawman, I never said they were. I said I don't care, American businesses do well on our own. And the US government restricting our rights because they want to help is a sucker claim worthy of the most partisan liberal Democrat

Nothing that has been suggested would restrict the ability of American businesses to do business internationally. Applying the same principles to other countries that they apply to us is the right thing to do, and it would help American business.

Of course it has. For example, he wants to "pull out" of NAFTA

So do I. NAFTA is good for every country except the USA.

 

[Redfish]

And again as I've been saying, that bow in the Republican quiver has run out. Decades of Republican controlled courts repeatedly rule for the left. John Roberts was the last bow you had left, and he went left for crony capitalism and government controlling our healthcare system. Supreme Court nominees don't do it anymore. We get nothing from Republicans nominating them

So, lets see if I get this. You would prefer SC justices appointed by Hillary Clinton?

Read much? How do you possibly get that out of what I said?

So the answer to you question is no, you don't get this.

I don't care between Bud Light and Miller Lite, they both suck. Oh, so you prefer Miller Lite!

Bud light and miller light are the same product in a different can.

Trump and Clinton are two completely different products.

Logical fallacy of equivocation.

My comment was regarding SC nominees, not overall. And in that subject, yeah, Republicans and Democrats are the same product in a different can

again, you think that Trump and Clinton would appoint the same people to the SC? yes or no.

 

[kaz]

You are advocating 19th century economics. Do you want 19th century medicine too?

Why don't you just admit you're a liberal who wants Big Gubmint to redistribute wealth? You'll be intellectually honest if you do.

This country had tariffs well into the 20th Century. Have you noticed how China was a third world country until the USA job market moved there? Do you think China doesn't protect it's manufacturing sector also? Big gubmint redistributes wealth to certain sectors here also. It subsidizes big agriculture for one. One reason why Mexico farming sector went down the tubes after Nafta. There's really no free market after all.

You sound like a liberal.

Why do you hate liberty and capitalism?

You Democrats always have.

Allowing our rivals to use unfair trade to fuck US is not conservatism.

Nor is it "Free TRade".

You people repeat that empty mantra endlessly. Just like Obamabots love to repeat empty phrases. What does it even mean?

And there is no alternative to "free" trade. Free means we (American business) decides. When you alter that, you empower government to decide for us. And the worst possible word to government is "fair" anything

American Trade policy should be crafted to serve the interests of America as a whole and as many individual Americans as possible.


American business is not the only player on the field.


YOu and your multinational corporations might be doing fine. America and American workers? Not so much.

Yes, comrade, trample the rights of the few for the good of the many.

The irony is that your little commie line sounds good and wins the Democrats a lot of elections, the reverse happens. My self interest in freedom leads to economic expansion and jobs and your hysterical they're going to steal our jobs fear leads to poverty and job loss. It's a mind fuck, isn't it?

 

[kaz]

I am not saying they are the same as people. I am saying they were the same as to their job performance. Do you really care if the guy beating you with a night stick in your jail cell is a nicer guy than the guy who beat you up last night?

I guess we just disagree on this. Bush made mistakes, but he did not have an agenda to bring down the USA. That's the difference.

I didn't disagree with that. I just don't really care why he brought us down. He spent like a drunk sailor, added numerous government agencies. Prescription drug welfare benefit to Medicare, the TSA, no child gets ahead, the $250 billion so called transportation bill Christmas tree, never vetoed a spending bill. He proposed budgets that grow government in every economic measure (GDP, inflation) BEFORE negotiating with the Democrats and not counting off budget spending like TARP and the wars. And speaking of the wars, he keeps getting us into more.

Oh, but he's on our side! Yeah, but I wish he wasn't ...

nice recitation of dem/lib talking points.

Wow, that kills any idea that you're conservative if I have to explain to you the incredible amount of money and government created by George W Bush. Now you've out lefted even Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who both criticized him for his excessive spending and creation of new bureaucracies. They said it was worth it because they supported the wars, but wow, you're a fiscal lib for sure if you didn't see the uber spending excesses

I never disagreed with you on Bush and his spending. My only point here is that Bush was a better human being than Obama and Bush loved the USA while Obama hates it.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

When I blasted W for spending, you called that a liberal/Democrat talking point. What words did I put in your mouth?

 

[Redfish]

This country used tariffs for most of it's history to build up and retain industries. Formerly dirt poor Red China has been built on the loss of the US manufacturing job base. Now we have to buy stuff from them previously made in this country, and they have our dollars with which to buy our assets. Go Trump I say.

You are advocating 19th century economics. Do you want 19th century medicine too?

Why don't you just admit you're a liberal who wants Big Gubmint to redistribute wealth? You'll be intellectually honest if you do.

We already HAVE 19th century economics.

We are just playing the part of the various defeated nations that everyone else is making money off of.

Except we are doing it to ourselves.

What does that even mean? You just swallowed Trump talking points, didn't you?

And as a career management/management consultant in multinational companies, we don't need your help. America competes fine. Actually exceptionally. You're the ones who are trying to destroy jobs and wreck the economy. You just don't understand it

The Rust Belt Street disagrees.

Yeah, they probably do. The people's republic of Michigan was brought down by the greedy workers who wanted less work, easier work, and higher pay. Government on their behalf rammed it down the throats of the car companies. You'd have really shitty cars if government had prevented them from going offshore to escape the unions.

BTW, "kaz" is short for my home town, Kalamazoo ... Michigan ...

I was raised in Detroit, near 7 mile and southfied. I lived in Detroit when it was a great booming alive city. Then the liberals, unions, and blacks took over and now its a garbage heap that cant pay its bills and is full of corruption and crime.

 

[kaz]

You people repeat that empty mantra endlessly. Just like Obamabots love to repeat empty phrases. What does it even mean?

And there is no alternative to "free" trade. Free means we (American business) decides. When you alter that, you empower government to decide for us. And the worst possible word to government is "fair" anything

sorry Kaz, but it seems that you are the one here who doesn't get it. The other countries are not playing fair on trade, to our detriment. We can either find ways to make them play fair, or we can play the same games against them. Right now we are doing neither and our negative trade balance is hurting American jobs.

Again, you keep repeating the mantra they aren't playing fair, but you don't back it up.

And anyway this is a strawman, I never said they were. I said I don't care, American businesses do well on our own. And the US government restricting our rights because they want to help is a sucker claim worthy of the most partisan liberal Democrat

Nothing that has been suggested would restrict the ability of American businesses to do business internationally. Applying the same principles to other countries that they apply to us is the right thing to do, and it would help American business.

Of course it has. For example, he wants to "pull out" of NAFTA

So do I. NAFTA is good for every country except the USA.

Begging the question. Why?

And no, it's not, it's better for us than anyone. We get cheaper access to low margin manufacturing. Competing with Mexico and China is not in our interest. Leveraging them is. But go ahead, why is NAFTA bad for the USA?

 

[Redfish]

I guess we just disagree on this. Bush made mistakes, but he did not have an agenda to bring down the USA. That's the difference.

I didn't disagree with that. I just don't really care why he brought us down. He spent like a drunk sailor, added numerous government agencies. Prescription drug welfare benefit to Medicare, the TSA, no child gets ahead, the $250 billion so called transportation bill Christmas tree, never vetoed a spending bill. He proposed budgets that grow government in every economic measure (GDP, inflation) BEFORE negotiating with the Democrats and not counting off budget spending like TARP and the wars. And speaking of the wars, he keeps getting us into more.

Oh, but he's on our side! Yeah, but I wish he wasn't ...

nice recitation of dem/lib talking points.

Wow, that kills any idea that you're conservative if I have to explain to you the incredible amount of money and government created by George W Bush. Now you've out lefted even Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who both criticized him for his excessive spending and creation of new bureaucracies. They said it was worth it because they supported the wars, but wow, you're a fiscal lib for sure if you didn't see the uber spending excesses

I never disagreed with you on Bush and his spending. My only point here is that Bush was a better human being than Obama and Bush loved the USA while Obama hates it.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

When I blasted W for spending, you called that a liberal/Democrat talking point. What words did I put in your mouth?

the words you used were right from the dem playbook-------intentional or not.

I do not support Bush on spending or Iraq, but with all his faults, he was a much better president than Obama. That's my only point here.

 

[kaz]

And again as I've been saying, that bow in the Republican quiver has run out. Decades of Republican controlled courts repeatedly rule for the left. John Roberts was the last bow you had left, and he went left for crony capitalism and government controlling our healthcare system. Supreme Court nominees don't do it anymore. We get nothing from Republicans nominating them

So, lets see if I get this. You would prefer SC justices appointed by Hillary Clinton?

Read much? How do you possibly get that out of what I said?

So the answer to you question is no, you don't get this.

I don't care between Bud Light and Miller Lite, they both suck. Oh, so you prefer Miller Lite!

Bud light and miller light are the same product in a different can.

Trump and Clinton are two completely different products.

Logical fallacy of equivocation.

My comment was regarding SC nominees, not overall. And in that subject, yeah, Republicans and Democrats are the same product in a different can

again, you think that Trump and Clinton would appoint the same people to the SC? yes or no.

Loaded question.

You didn't understand the Bud/Miller analogy?

 

[Redfish]

sorry Kaz, but it seems that you are the one here who doesn't get it. The other countries are not playing fair on trade, to our detriment. We can either find ways to make them play fair, or we can play the same games against them. Right now we are doing neither and our negative trade balance is hurting American jobs.

Again, you keep repeating the mantra they aren't playing fair, but you don't back it up.

And anyway this is a strawman, I never said they were. I said I don't care, American businesses do well on our own. And the US government restricting our rights because they want to help is a sucker claim worthy of the most partisan liberal Democrat

Nothing that has been suggested would restrict the ability of American businesses to do business internationally. Applying the same principles to other countries that they apply to us is the right thing to do, and it would help American business.

Of course it has. For example, he wants to "pull out" of NAFTA

So do I. NAFTA is good for every country except the USA.

Begging the question. Why?

And no, it's not, it's better for us than anyone. We get cheaper access to low margin manufacturing. Competing with Mexico and China is not in our interest. Leveraging them is. But go ahead, why is NAFTA bad for the USA?

because labor is more expensive in the US than in mexico.

 

[Redfish]

So, lets see if I get this. You would prefer SC justices appointed by Hillary Clinton?

Read much? How do you possibly get that out of what I said?

So the answer to you question is no, you don't get this.

I don't care between Bud Light and Miller Lite, they both suck. Oh, so you prefer Miller Lite!

Bud light and miller light are the same product in a different can.

Trump and Clinton are two completely different products.

Logical fallacy of equivocation.

My comment was regarding SC nominees, not overall. And in that subject, yeah, Republicans and Democrats are the same product in a different can

again, you think that Trump and Clinton would appoint the same people to the SC? yes or no.

Loaded question.

You didn't understand the Bud/Miller analogy?

of course I understood your simple analogy. It applies to beer but not to SC nominees.

 

[kaz]

You are advocating 19th century economics. Do you want 19th century medicine too?

Why don't you just admit you're a liberal who wants Big Gubmint to redistribute wealth? You'll be intellectually honest if you do.

We already HAVE 19th century economics.

We are just playing the part of the various defeated nations that everyone else is making money off of.

Except we are doing it to ourselves.

What does that even mean? You just swallowed Trump talking points, didn't you?

And as a career management/management consultant in multinational companies, we don't need your help. America competes fine. Actually exceptionally. You're the ones who are trying to destroy jobs and wreck the economy. You just don't understand it

The Rust Belt Street disagrees.

Yeah, they probably do. The people's republic of Michigan was brought down by the greedy workers who wanted less work, easier work, and higher pay. Government on their behalf rammed it down the throats of the car companies. You'd have really shitty cars if government had prevented them from going offshore to escape the unions.

BTW, "kaz" is short for my home town, Kalamazoo ... Michigan ...

I was raised in Detroit, near 7 mile and southfied. I lived in Detroit when it was a great booming alive city. Then the liberals, unions, and blacks took over and now its a garbage heap that cant pay its bills and is full of corruption and crime.

And yet you blame that on free trade? Seriously? The unions voted in leftists who destroyed the car companies. Free trade is what saved us all from having car doors that don't close. Government is what screwed us to get Detroit to that point. Yet you want to fix that problem created by government with government and closed markets forcing us to buy the crap Detroit was turning out? That's insane

 

[kaz]

Again, you keep repeating the mantra they aren't playing fair, but you don't back it up.

And anyway this is a strawman, I never said they were. I said I don't care, American businesses do well on our own. And the US government restricting our rights because they want to help is a sucker claim worthy of the most partisan liberal Democrat

Nothing that has been suggested would restrict the ability of American businesses to do business internationally. Applying the same principles to other countries that they apply to us is the right thing to do, and it would help American business.

Of course it has. For example, he wants to "pull out" of NAFTA

So do I. NAFTA is good for every country except the USA.

Begging the question. Why?

And no, it's not, it's better for us than anyone. We get cheaper access to low margin manufacturing. Competing with Mexico and China is not in our interest. Leveraging them is. But go ahead, why is NAFTA bad for the USA?

because labor is more expensive in the US than in mexico.

Yep, and we need to take advantage of that. 100 years ago half the people worked in agriculture and we had blacksmiths. Things change. America won because we won change, not because we fought it.

So what about my question, why is NAFTA bad for the USA?

 

[Redfish]

We already HAVE 19th century economics.

We are just playing the part of the various defeated nations that everyone else is making money off of.

Except we are doing it to ourselves.

What does that even mean? You just swallowed Trump talking points, didn't you?

And as a career management/management consultant in multinational companies, we don't need your help. America competes fine. Actually exceptionally. You're the ones who are trying to destroy jobs and wreck the economy. You just don't understand it

The Rust Belt Street disagrees.

Yeah, they probably do. The people's republic of Michigan was brought down by the greedy workers who wanted less work, easier work, and higher pay. Government on their behalf rammed it down the throats of the car companies. You'd have really shitty cars if government had prevented them from going offshore to escape the unions.

BTW, "kaz" is short for my home town, Kalamazoo ... Michigan ...

I was raised in Detroit, near 7 mile and southfied. I lived in Detroit when it was a great booming alive city. Then the liberals, unions, and blacks took over and now its a garbage heap that cant pay its bills and is full of corruption and crime.

And yet you blame that on free trade? Seriously? The unions voted in leftists who destroyed the car companies. Free trade is what saved us all from having car doors that don't close. Government is what screwed us to get Detroit to that point. Yet you want to fix that problem created by government with government and closed markets forcing us to buy the crap Detroit was turning out? That's insane

fair international trade laws don't prevent you from buying a Toyota or BMW. Where do you get this BS?

 

[kaz]

I didn't disagree with that. I just don't really care why he brought us down. He spent like a drunk sailor, added numerous government agencies. Prescription drug welfare benefit to Medicare, the TSA, no child gets ahead, the $250 billion so called transportation bill Christmas tree, never vetoed a spending bill. He proposed budgets that grow government in every economic measure (GDP, inflation) BEFORE negotiating with the Democrats and not counting off budget spending like TARP and the wars. And speaking of the wars, he keeps getting us into more.

Oh, but he's on our side! Yeah, but I wish he wasn't ...

nice recitation of dem/lib talking points.

Wow, that kills any idea that you're conservative if I have to explain to you the incredible amount of money and government created by George W Bush. Now you've out lefted even Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who both criticized him for his excessive spending and creation of new bureaucracies. They said it was worth it because they supported the wars, but wow, you're a fiscal lib for sure if you didn't see the uber spending excesses

I never disagreed with you on Bush and his spending. My only point here is that Bush was a better human being than Obama and Bush loved the USA while Obama hates it.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

When I blasted W for spending, you called that a liberal/Democrat talking point. What words did I put in your mouth?

the words you used were right from the dem playbook-------intentional or not.

I do not support Bush on spending or Iraq, but with all his faults, he was a much better president than Obama. That's my only point here.

So why do I give a shit if the Democrats say it or not? Seriously, that's your argument? They are right, he did spend like a drunken sailor. Of course they wanted Gore to be the one spending like a drunken sailor and I didn't want anyone to do it. But that W did it is true

 

[kaz]

What does that even mean? You just swallowed Trump talking points, didn't you?

And as a career management/management consultant in multinational companies, we don't need your help. America competes fine. Actually exceptionally. You're the ones who are trying to destroy jobs and wreck the economy. You just don't understand it

The Rust Belt Street disagrees.

Yeah, they probably do. The people's republic of Michigan was brought down by the greedy workers who wanted less work, easier work, and higher pay. Government on their behalf rammed it down the throats of the car companies. You'd have really shitty cars if government had prevented them from going offshore to escape the unions.

BTW, "kaz" is short for my home town, Kalamazoo ... Michigan ...

I was raised in Detroit, near 7 mile and southfied. I lived in Detroit when it was a great booming alive city. Then the liberals, unions, and blacks took over and now its a garbage heap that cant pay its bills and is full of corruption and crime.

And yet you blame that on free trade? Seriously? The unions voted in leftists who destroyed the car companies. Free trade is what saved us all from having car doors that don't close. Government is what screwed us to get Detroit to that point. Yet you want to fix that problem created by government with government and closed markets forcing us to buy the crap Detroit was turning out? That's insane

fair international trade laws don't prevent you from buying a Toyota or BMW. Where do you get this BS?

That's my point, you're fighting to end that. You really need to listen to Trump more closely

 

[kaz]

Read much? How do you possibly get that out of what I said?

So the answer to you question is no, you don't get this.

I don't care between Bud Light and Miller Lite, they both suck. Oh, so you prefer Miller Lite!

Bud light and miller light are the same product in a different can.

Trump and Clinton are two completely different products.

Logical fallacy of equivocation.

My comment was regarding SC nominees, not overall. And in that subject, yeah, Republicans and Democrats are the same product in a different can

again, you think that Trump and Clinton would appoint the same people to the SC? yes or no.

Loaded question.

You didn't understand the Bud/Miller analogy?

of course I understood your simple analogy. It applies to beer but not to SC nominees.

That you thought I said they were going to nominate the same people contradicts your saying you understood the analogy.

No, not the same people, but it doesn't make any difference, they'll do the same thing. Let socialism ring and ignore the 10th amendment as well as a bunch of others.

If you understood the beer analogy, that is obvious