Smith: ‘Donald Trump Is Just A Fat Pig, And All The People That Support Him Are…’

[Harpy Eagle]

Yep, we do not make anything they want but we do grow a lot of stuff they want. But so do other counties that are not threatening them.

Watch what happens to the “Trump economy” when the heathland and plain states go belly up when other countries stop buying our grains.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

We make just about everything.

Wanting trade to be somewhat equal is not threatening them.



2% of America are farmers, but you want trade policy to protect them, while ignoring the manufacturing sector.

What percent of Americans eat the food the farmers produce? Are you really that dense. wait, do not answer, no reason to the answer is obvious.

That bit at the end, where you made it personal? Shit like that is why you look like a lefty.


YOur point was about the farming communities and the hit they might take from losing Mexico as a market.


My point was to point out the more people work in manufacturing than farming, yet you support trade policy to protect farmers but to manufacturing labor.


Your response was to say that those farmers feed the rest of America.


I can only guess was that your point was that they thus deserve more consideration or are more needed?



If Mexico is so wedded to the idea that they want large trade surpluses with US or they will wage a trade war against US, then they are the problem.


I want to protect us farmers, but not at the cost of even more Americans, especially Americans who have been thrown under the bus for a long time now.


It is time to think about the RUst Belt for a change, (and manufacturing workers everywhere in US).

It is not about the number of jobs lost, clearly right now employment is not a major issue.
It is about the effect on the country when an entire industry crashes.
When a factory closes and moves to Mexico the impact on the workers is hard but there is very little ripple effect.
Think about what happened when the housing industry crashed, it sent us into the worst economic down turn since the Great Depression.
Now imagine the effect on the country if the grains market were to crash, taking many other ag related items with it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I live in the Rust Belt. You are wrong about the Ripple Effect not being great.

Why is Mexico having more balanced trade with US out of the question?

There is nothing wrong with having an imbalanced trade balance with a country.

Somewhere up this chain of post you stated that we do not make anything they want, and you are pretty much correct. And even with that being said, they are our 2nd largest export market. What would the effect be to lose our 2nd largest export market?

Since you think things need to be "balanced" how do we go about that? What are we going to start making here that a large market in Mexico will be able to afford and how much will it cost us to make it? What do you suggest we make here that we could send to them?

Do we bring back the factory workers and build things here? How well do you think that will go over when people start paying 20 to 30 percent more for the same item they were getting from Mexico? I think the general populous will not be all that happy, what do you think?

I am sorry you live in the rust belt and that things have been hard, but you cannot turn back time, we are not going back to the good old days of American manufacturing dominance, because nobody is willing to work for the wages it would take to compete with the rest of the world.

 

[Correll]

Your pretense that you are not aware of the quote is noted and dismissed. Consider yourself laughed at.

Consider yourself a failure then since you can't back it up.

Oh that reminds me Mount Bigly in Iowa has just erupted covering the entire state with lava and millions lie dead. I don't have a link though so take my word for it.

NO, I think I will consider you a joke since you are pretending to not know of a quote that was everywhere.

I don't know of a quote that fits the way you characterized it, no. And from the lack of evidence, apparently you don't know of one either.

Meanwhile you're the klown sitting here in a thread based on a fake news site. I'm thinking that's related.

You almost made a point there. I can sort of guess what line of argument you want to use.


So, just say it, clearly so that I can respond to it, and stop playing stupid games.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go. For you that musta been several things ago.

So you want to start over. Here you go, your original statement, verbatim:

What do you think of HIllary smearing half the country as "deplorable"?

To which I responded, What do you think of putting a link on that to make it real?

Two days later, still nothing.
Which is exactly what I expected.

I meant what I said, you know the quote I am referring to, I've given you my take on it, if you disagree, then explain why you disagree, and stop playing silly games.


Hillary smeared half the nation as "deplorabe".


That's extremely divisive.


AND, to be clear, the people she was smearing are good people, that she falsely smeared.


Her accusations were lies, and she is a piece of shit.

 

[Correll]

We make just about everything.

Wanting trade to be somewhat equal is not threatening them.



2% of America are farmers, but you want trade policy to protect them, while ignoring the manufacturing sector.

What percent of Americans eat the food the farmers produce? Are you really that dense. wait, do not answer, no reason to the answer is obvious.

That bit at the end, where you made it personal? Shit like that is why you look like a lefty.


YOur point was about the farming communities and the hit they might take from losing Mexico as a market.


My point was to point out the more people work in manufacturing than farming, yet you support trade policy to protect farmers but to manufacturing labor.


Your response was to say that those farmers feed the rest of America.


I can only guess was that your point was that they thus deserve more consideration or are more needed?



If Mexico is so wedded to the idea that they want large trade surpluses with US or they will wage a trade war against US, then they are the problem.


I want to protect us farmers, but not at the cost of even more Americans, especially Americans who have been thrown under the bus for a long time now.


It is time to think about the RUst Belt for a change, (and manufacturing workers everywhere in US).

It is not about the number of jobs lost, clearly right now employment is not a major issue.
It is about the effect on the country when an entire industry crashes.
When a factory closes and moves to Mexico the impact on the workers is hard but there is very little ripple effect.
Think about what happened when the housing industry crashed, it sent us into the worst economic down turn since the Great Depression.
Now imagine the effect on the country if the grains market were to crash, taking many other ag related items with it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I live in the Rust Belt. You are wrong about the Ripple Effect not being great.

Why is Mexico having more balanced trade with US out of the question?

There is nothing wrong with having an imbalanced trade balance with a country.

Somewhere up this chain of post you stated that we do not make anything they want, and you are pretty much correct. And even with that being said, they are our 2nd largest export market. What would the effect be to lose our 2nd largest export market?

Since you think things need to be "balanced" how do we go about that? What are we going to start making here that a large market in Mexico will be able to afford and how much will it cost us to make it? What do you suggest we make here that we could send to them?

Do we bring back the factory workers and build things here? How well do you think that will go over when people start paying 20 to 30 percent more for the same item they were getting from Mexico? I think the general populous will not be all that happy, what do you think?

I am sorry you live in the rust belt and that things have been hard, but you cannot turn back time, we are not going back to the good old days of American manufacturing dominance, because nobody is willing to work for the wages it would take to compete with the rest of the world.

1. If trade balance is not important, than why is there so much resistance to changing it? If what we want is so unimportant, than just give it to us, and then when nothing changes, you can laugh at us and tell us you told us so.


2. Why is balanced trade out of the question?


3. Yes, I think people will be happy to pay more, if it means the benefits from that are going to their fellow Americans.


4. Wanting less of being fucked is not asking for a return to world dominance.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What percent of Americans eat the food the farmers produce? Are you really that dense. wait, do not answer, no reason to the answer is obvious.

That bit at the end, where you made it personal? Shit like that is why you look like a lefty.


YOur point was about the farming communities and the hit they might take from losing Mexico as a market.


My point was to point out the more people work in manufacturing than farming, yet you support trade policy to protect farmers but to manufacturing labor.


Your response was to say that those farmers feed the rest of America.


I can only guess was that your point was that they thus deserve more consideration or are more needed?



If Mexico is so wedded to the idea that they want large trade surpluses with US or they will wage a trade war against US, then they are the problem.


I want to protect us farmers, but not at the cost of even more Americans, especially Americans who have been thrown under the bus for a long time now.


It is time to think about the RUst Belt for a change, (and manufacturing workers everywhere in US).

It is not about the number of jobs lost, clearly right now employment is not a major issue.
It is about the effect on the country when an entire industry crashes.
When a factory closes and moves to Mexico the impact on the workers is hard but there is very little ripple effect.
Think about what happened when the housing industry crashed, it sent us into the worst economic down turn since the Great Depression.
Now imagine the effect on the country if the grains market were to crash, taking many other ag related items with it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I live in the Rust Belt. You are wrong about the Ripple Effect not being great.

Why is Mexico having more balanced trade with US out of the question?

There is nothing wrong with having an imbalanced trade balance with a country.

Somewhere up this chain of post you stated that we do not make anything they want, and you are pretty much correct. And even with that being said, they are our 2nd largest export market. What would the effect be to lose our 2nd largest export market?

Since you think things need to be "balanced" how do we go about that? What are we going to start making here that a large market in Mexico will be able to afford and how much will it cost us to make it? What do you suggest we make here that we could send to them?

Do we bring back the factory workers and build things here? How well do you think that will go over when people start paying 20 to 30 percent more for the same item they were getting from Mexico? I think the general populous will not be all that happy, what do you think?

I am sorry you live in the rust belt and that things have been hard, but you cannot turn back time, we are not going back to the good old days of American manufacturing dominance, because nobody is willing to work for the wages it would take to compete with the rest of the world.

1. If trade balance is not important, than why is there so much resistance to changing it? If what we want is so unimportant, than just give it to us, and then when nothing changes, you can laugh at us and tell us you told us so.


2. Why is balanced trade out of the question?


3. Yes, I think people will be happy to pay more, if it means the benefits from that are going to their fellow Americans.


4. Wanting less of being fucked is not asking for a return to world dominance.

1. Because changing it would make things worse, not better.

2. Because such a thing no longer exist in our world. Think about this on a personal level. You have a trade imbalance with your grocery store. They give you food and stuff and all you give in return is money, as that is all you have that they desire. Should we go back to the days prior to currency being so prevalent and barter goods for goods? That is what you are wanting our country to do.

3. I think you are fooling yourself with that one. If that were the case then WalMart would not have more than 5000 stores around the country. It is also estimated that more than half the country lives paycheck to paycheck, do you think they are capable of paying 20 to 30 percent more for everyday items?

4. Nobody is being fucked, that is just a lie that Trump told people to get them to vote for him.

 

[Pogo]

Consider yourself a failure then since you can't back it up.

Oh that reminds me Mount Bigly in Iowa has just erupted covering the entire state with lava and millions lie dead. I don't have a link though so take my word for it.

NO, I think I will consider you a joke since you are pretending to not know of a quote that was everywhere.

I don't know of a quote that fits the way you characterized it, no. And from the lack of evidence, apparently you don't know of one either.

Meanwhile you're the klown sitting here in a thread based on a fake news site. I'm thinking that's related.

You almost made a point there. I can sort of guess what line of argument you want to use.


So, just say it, clearly so that I can respond to it, and stop playing stupid games.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go. For you that musta been several things ago.

So you want to start over. Here you go, your original statement, verbatim:

What do you think of HIllary smearing half the country as "deplorable"?

To which I responded, What do you think of putting a link on that to make it real?

Two days later, still nothing.
Which is exactly what I expected.

I meant what I said, you know the quote I am referring to, I've given you my take on it, if you disagree, then explain why you disagree, and stop playing silly games.


Hillary smeared half the nation as "deplorabe".


That's extremely divisive.


AND, to be clear, the people she was smearing are good people, that she falsely smeared.


Her accusations were lies, and she is a piece of shit.

And now we're on to day three of the same unsourced quote.

They're making strawmen more durable these days. This one's made with special ingredient ™


Of course in your own defense this entire thread is based on a fake news site so at least you're on topic.

 

[GHook93]

For a man to be able to publicly refer to a woman as a fat pig, that makes me teary. And for people to applaud, that is absolutely f**king insanity to me,” an emotional Smith told
Smith: ‘Donald Trump Is Just A Fat Pig, And All The People That Support Him Are…’
What do you think. Do you justifying this?

It is called the 1st amendment, perhaps you have heard of it?

No one claimed he didn’t have a right you stupid fuck. Rather they are reacting the to hypocrisy of a man who is a serial cheater and uses and abuse women are not his wife.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

For a man to be able to publicly refer to a woman as a fat pig, that makes me teary. And for people to applaud, that is absolutely f**king insanity to me,” an emotional Smith told
Smith: ‘Donald Trump Is Just A Fat Pig, And All The People That Support Him Are…’
What do you think. Do you justifying this?

It is called the 1st amendment, perhaps you have heard of it?

No one claimed he didn’t have a right you stupid fuck. Rather they are reacting the to hypocrisy of a man who is a serial cheater and uses and abuse women are not his wife.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So, he is Trump's twin. I did not realize that. Well you are right, he should not be criticizing Trump then.

 

[Correll]

That bit at the end, where you made it personal? Shit like that is why you look like a lefty.


YOur point was about the farming communities and the hit they might take from losing Mexico as a market.


My point was to point out the more people work in manufacturing than farming, yet you support trade policy to protect farmers but to manufacturing labor.


Your response was to say that those farmers feed the rest of America.


I can only guess was that your point was that they thus deserve more consideration or are more needed?



If Mexico is so wedded to the idea that they want large trade surpluses with US or they will wage a trade war against US, then they are the problem.


I want to protect us farmers, but not at the cost of even more Americans, especially Americans who have been thrown under the bus for a long time now.


It is time to think about the RUst Belt for a change, (and manufacturing workers everywhere in US).

It is not about the number of jobs lost, clearly right now employment is not a major issue.
It is about the effect on the country when an entire industry crashes.
When a factory closes and moves to Mexico the impact on the workers is hard but there is very little ripple effect.
Think about what happened when the housing industry crashed, it sent us into the worst economic down turn since the Great Depression.
Now imagine the effect on the country if the grains market were to crash, taking many other ag related items with it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I live in the Rust Belt. You are wrong about the Ripple Effect not being great.

Why is Mexico having more balanced trade with US out of the question?

There is nothing wrong with having an imbalanced trade balance with a country.

Somewhere up this chain of post you stated that we do not make anything they want, and you are pretty much correct. And even with that being said, they are our 2nd largest export market. What would the effect be to lose our 2nd largest export market?

Since you think things need to be "balanced" how do we go about that? What are we going to start making here that a large market in Mexico will be able to afford and how much will it cost us to make it? What do you suggest we make here that we could send to them?

Do we bring back the factory workers and build things here? How well do you think that will go over when people start paying 20 to 30 percent more for the same item they were getting from Mexico? I think the general populous will not be all that happy, what do you think?

I am sorry you live in the rust belt and that things have been hard, but you cannot turn back time, we are not going back to the good old days of American manufacturing dominance, because nobody is willing to work for the wages it would take to compete with the rest of the world.

1. If trade balance is not important, than why is there so much resistance to changing it? If what we want is so unimportant, than just give it to us, and then when nothing changes, you can laugh at us and tell us you told us so.


2. Why is balanced trade out of the question?


3. Yes, I think people will be happy to pay more, if it means the benefits from that are going to their fellow Americans.


4. Wanting less of being fucked is not asking for a return to world dominance.

1. Because changing it would make things worse, not better.

I think that a trade policy that looks to protect and nurture our manufacturing labor sector the same way you have expressed you want our trade policy to protect and nurture our agricultural sector, will be a change for the better.

2. Because such a thing no longer exist in our world. Think about this on a personal level. You have a trade imbalance with your grocery store. They give you food and stuff and all you give in return is money, as that is all you have that they desire. Should we go back to the days prior to currency being so prevalent and barter goods for goods? That is what you are wanting our country to do.

If the system was limited just me and the store, that imbalance would very quickly impoverish me, as my money would be going out, and none coming back in.

But I have a "trade surplus" with my employer that balances out my deficit with the store.

America has an overall trade deficit that is causing US great harm.

3. I think you are fooling yourself with that one. If that were the case then WalMart would not have more than 5000 stores around the country. It is also estimated that more than half the country lives paycheck to paycheck, do you think they are capable of paying 20 to 30 percent more for everyday items?

Trade policy is not an individual responsibility, but a government one. Trump's election was driven by his Trade policy, as much as anything. That was the people choosing their trade policy.

And yes, the American consumer can survive without cheap chinese imports.


Especially if better Trade and Immigration policy leads to higher wages, which is should.

4. Nobody is being fucked, that is just a lie that Trump told people to get them to vote for him.

A couple of posts ago, you were worried about what would happen to the Mid West is they lost a significant share of their export markets.


Here is the Rust Belt, that has happened to US, and calling it "being fucked" is certainly appropriate.


If Trump managed to lose the Mexican export market, would you want a future President to try to change trade policy to get it back?

 

[Correll]

NO, I think I will consider you a joke since you are pretending to not know of a quote that was everywhere.

I don't know of a quote that fits the way you characterized it, no. And from the lack of evidence, apparently you don't know of one either.

Meanwhile you're the klown sitting here in a thread based on a fake news site. I'm thinking that's related.

You almost made a point there. I can sort of guess what line of argument you want to use.


So, just say it, clearly so that I can respond to it, and stop playing stupid games.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go. For you that musta been several things ago.

So you want to start over. Here you go, your original statement, verbatim:

What do you think of HIllary smearing half the country as "deplorable"?

To which I responded, What do you think of putting a link on that to make it real?

Two days later, still nothing.
Which is exactly what I expected.

I meant what I said, you know the quote I am referring to, I've given you my take on it, if you disagree, then explain why you disagree, and stop playing silly games.


Hillary smeared half the nation as "deplorabe".


That's extremely divisive.


AND, to be clear, the people she was smearing are good people, that she falsely smeared.


Her accusations were lies, and she is a piece of shit.

And now we're on to day three of the same unsourced quote.

They're making strawmen more durable these days. This one's made with special ingredient ™


Of course in your own defense this entire thread is based on a fake news site so at least you're on topic.

My point stands. Hillary was being very divisive when she smeared half the nation as "Deplorable".


You claim that you need that sourced, that you are not aware of the quote, I've laughed at you repeatedly for that, and I guess you want some more.


Here you go.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I think that a trade policy that looks to protect and nurture our manufacturing labor sector the same way you have expressed you want our trade policy to protect and nurture our agricultural sector, will be a change for the better.

I am not looking for a trade policy to protect and nurture the our agricultural sector, I am looking a policy that does not screw them over for no reason. The manufacturing sector did not die due to trade policies but due to the fact they could not compete with the rest of the world. Our our agricultural sector is just the opposite, due to the combination of huge amounts of fertile ground and amazing technology yields on items like field corn and soybeans are growing at unseen rates When I first started my current job 5 years ago a yield over 200 for field corn was astronomical and had to be confirmed. This year I am seeing yields in the 250 and 260 bushels/acre range and nobody is batting an eye. The same holds true for the yields for soybeans.

If the system was limited just me and the store, that imbalance would very quickly impoverish me, as my money would be going out, and none coming back in.

But I have a "trade surplus" with my employer that balances out my deficit with the store.

America has an overall trade deficit that is causing US great harm.

There is no great harm because the same thing that is happening between your employer, you and your grocery store is happening between the US and its trade partners. The US citizen has a "trade surplus" with their employer on which they use to buy the things that other countries make for us. There is no more harm in that than in me paying someone to mow my lawn.

 

[Correll]

I think that a trade policy that looks to protect and nurture our manufacturing labor sector the same way you have expressed you want our trade policy to protect and nurture our agricultural sector, will be a change for the better.

I am not looking for a trade policy to protect and nurture the our agricultural sector, I am looking a policy that does not screw them over for no reason. The manufacturing sector did not die due to trade policies but due to the fact they could not compete with the rest of the world. Our our agricultural sector is just the opposite, due to the combination of huge amounts of fertile ground and amazing technology yields on items like field corn and soybeans are growing at unseen rates When I first started my current job 5 years ago a yield over 200 for field corn was astronomical and had to be confirmed. This year I am seeing yields in the 250 and 260 bushels/acre range and nobody is batting an eye. The same holds true for the yields for soybeans.

If the system was limited just me and the store, that imbalance would very quickly impoverish me, as my money would be going out, and none coming back in.

But I have a "trade surplus" with my employer that balances out my deficit with the store.

America has an overall trade deficit that is causing US great harm.

There is no great harm because the same thing that is happening between your employer, you and your grocery store is happening between the US and its trade partners. The US citizen has a "trade surplus" with their employer on which they use to buy the things that other countries make for us. There is no more harm in that than in me paying someone to mow my lawn.

1.a It is not clear that lack of competitiveness is the explanation for our trade deficits. Our technology and our productivity is among the highest in the world.

1b and the point of economic policy is to benefit the nation's citizens. Regardless of reasons, our current trade policy and balance is fucking the American working poor and middle classes.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I think that a trade policy that looks to protect and nurture our manufacturing labor sector the same way you have expressed you want our trade policy to protect and nurture our agricultural sector, will be a change for the better.

I am not looking for a trade policy to protect and nurture the our agricultural sector, I am looking a policy that does not screw them over for no reason. The manufacturing sector did not die due to trade policies but due to the fact they could not compete with the rest of the world. Our our agricultural sector is just the opposite, due to the combination of huge amounts of fertile ground and amazing technology yields on items like field corn and soybeans are growing at unseen rates When I first started my current job 5 years ago a yield over 200 for field corn was astronomical and had to be confirmed. This year I am seeing yields in the 250 and 260 bushels/acre range and nobody is batting an eye. The same holds true for the yields for soybeans.

If the system was limited just me and the store, that imbalance would very quickly impoverish me, as my money would be going out, and none coming back in.

But I have a "trade surplus" with my employer that balances out my deficit with the store.

America has an overall trade deficit that is causing US great harm.

There is no great harm because the same thing that is happening between your employer, you and your grocery store is happening between the US and its trade partners. The US citizen has a "trade surplus" with their employer on which they use to buy the things that other countries make for us. There is no more harm in that than in me paying someone to mow my lawn.

1.a It is not clear that lack of competitiveness is the explanation for our trade deficits. Our technology and our productivity is among the highest in the world.

1b and the point of economic policy is to benefit the nation's citizens. Regardless of reasons, our current trade policy and balance is fucking the American working poor and middle classes.

1.a. yes it was, and so were our salaries, which is what drove the stake into the heart of our manufacturing.

1.b. I do not agree with the idea that our trade policies are fuckign anyone. In my opinion that was just a line used by Trump to get himself elected.

 

[Correll]

I think that a trade policy that looks to protect and nurture our manufacturing labor sector the same way you have expressed you want our trade policy to protect and nurture our agricultural sector, will be a change for the better.

I am not looking for a trade policy to protect and nurture the our agricultural sector, I am looking a policy that does not screw them over for no reason. The manufacturing sector did not die due to trade policies but due to the fact they could not compete with the rest of the world. Our our agricultural sector is just the opposite, due to the combination of huge amounts of fertile ground and amazing technology yields on items like field corn and soybeans are growing at unseen rates When I first started my current job 5 years ago a yield over 200 for field corn was astronomical and had to be confirmed. This year I am seeing yields in the 250 and 260 bushels/acre range and nobody is batting an eye. The same holds true for the yields for soybeans.

If the system was limited just me and the store, that imbalance would very quickly impoverish me, as my money would be going out, and none coming back in.

But I have a "trade surplus" with my employer that balances out my deficit with the store.

America has an overall trade deficit that is causing US great harm.

There is no great harm because the same thing that is happening between your employer, you and your grocery store is happening between the US and its trade partners. The US citizen has a "trade surplus" with their employer on which they use to buy the things that other countries make for us. There is no more harm in that than in me paying someone to mow my lawn.

1.a It is not clear that lack of competitiveness is the explanation for our trade deficits. Our technology and our productivity is among the highest in the world.

1b and the point of economic policy is to benefit the nation's citizens. Regardless of reasons, our current trade policy and balance is fucking the American working poor and middle classes.

1.a. yes it was, and so were our salaries, which is what drove the stake into the heart of our manufacturing.

1.b. I do not agree with the idea that our trade policies are fuckign anyone. In my opinion that was just a line used by Trump to get himself elected.

1a The EU disagrees. They think they need to cheat to compete.

Trump Right on Trade Predators


"According to the WTO, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the EU pumped $22 billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing out of the sale of 375 commercial jets.

Subsidies to the A320 caused lost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for planes in the twin-aisle market cost the sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing the sale of 54 747s. These represent crippling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical component of our national defense...."


"Richard Evans of British Aerospace explained: “Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream.” And another executive said, “If Airbus has to give away planes, we will do it.”

When Europe’s taxpayers objected to the $26 billion in subsidies Airbus had gotten by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl was dismissive, “We don’t care about criticism from small-minded pencil-pushers.”

This is the voice of economic nationalism."



1b. You voiced concern that US trade policy would cause great harm to the midwest. I can tell you that US trade policy has already caused and is still causing great harm to the Rust Belt.

Our trade policies are fucking the working poor and the middle class.

 

[GHook93]

He called the classless 9/11 troofer and child abuser (she abused her adopted daughter so much, that now as an adult she won’t have anything to do with the fat pig) O’Donnell a fat pig. She is actually worse than that!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Pogo]

I don't know of a quote that fits the way you characterized it, no. And from the lack of evidence, apparently you don't know of one either.

Meanwhile you're the klown sitting here in a thread based on a fake news site. I'm thinking that's related.

You almost made a point there. I can sort of guess what line of argument you want to use.


So, just say it, clearly so that I can respond to it, and stop playing stupid games.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go. For you that musta been several things ago.

So you want to start over. Here you go, your original statement, verbatim:

What do you think of HIllary smearing half the country as "deplorable"?

To which I responded, What do you think of putting a link on that to make it real?

Two days later, still nothing.
Which is exactly what I expected.

I meant what I said, you know the quote I am referring to, I've given you my take on it, if you disagree, then explain why you disagree, and stop playing silly games.


Hillary smeared half the nation as "deplorabe".


That's extremely divisive.


AND, to be clear, the people she was smearing are good people, that she falsely smeared.


Her accusations were lies, and she is a piece of shit.

And now we're on to day three of the same unsourced quote.

They're making strawmen more durable these days. This one's made with special ingredient ™


Of course in your own defense this entire thread is based on a fake news site so at least you're on topic.

My point stands. Hillary was being very divisive when she smeared half the nation as "Deplorable".


You claim that you need that sourced, that you are not aware of the quote, I've laughed at you repeatedly for that, and I guess you want some more.


Here you go.

Once again --- asked for a source, he goes to some unconnected Googly Image, affirming once again that he doesn't have one.

See you again on day four. We'll run the same drill again and you can even find a different irrelevant Googly Image. Fun for the feebleminded.

 

[Siete]

fat pig

the difference;

 

[Correll]

You almost made a point there. I can sort of guess what line of argument you want to use.


So, just say it, clearly so that I can respond to it, and stop playing stupid games.

I understand the memory is the second thing to go. For you that musta been several things ago.

So you want to start over. Here you go, your original statement, verbatim:

What do you think of HIllary smearing half the country as "deplorable"?

To which I responded, What do you think of putting a link on that to make it real?

Two days later, still nothing.
Which is exactly what I expected.

I meant what I said, you know the quote I am referring to, I've given you my take on it, if you disagree, then explain why you disagree, and stop playing silly games.


Hillary smeared half the nation as "deplorabe".


That's extremely divisive.


AND, to be clear, the people she was smearing are good people, that she falsely smeared.


Her accusations were lies, and she is a piece of shit.

And now we're on to day three of the same unsourced quote.

They're making strawmen more durable these days. This one's made with special ingredient ™


Of course in your own defense this entire thread is based on a fake news site so at least you're on topic.

My point stands. Hillary was being very divisive when she smeared half the nation as "Deplorable".


You claim that you need that sourced, that you are not aware of the quote, I've laughed at you repeatedly for that, and I guess you want some more.


Here you go.

Once again --- asked for a source, he goes to some unconnected Googly Image, affirming once again that he doesn't have one.

See you again on day four. We'll run the same drill again and you can even find a different irrelevant Googly Image. Fun for the feebleminded.

You're the feeble one, that can't remember the low point of the last election.


My point was just a reference to what a divisive piece of shit Hillary was being.


Do you have a point? Or are you just here to fill the thread with meaningless pap?

 

[Pogo]

I understand the memory is the second thing to go. For you that musta been several things ago.

So you want to start over. Here you go, your original statement, verbatim:

To which I responded, What do you think of putting a link on that to make it real?

Two days later, still nothing.
Which is exactly what I expected.

I meant what I said, you know the quote I am referring to, I've given you my take on it, if you disagree, then explain why you disagree, and stop playing silly games.


Hillary smeared half the nation as "deplorabe".

That's extremely divisive.

AND, to be clear, the people she was smearing are good people, that she falsely smeared.

Her accusations were lies, and she is a piece of shit.

And now we're on to day three of the same unsourced quote.

They're making strawmen more durable these days. This one's made with special ingredient ™

Of course in your own defense this entire thread is based on a fake news site so at least you're on topic.

My point stands. Hillary was being very divisive when she smeared half the nation as "Deplorable".

You claim that you need that sourced, that you are not aware of the quote, I've laughed at you repeatedly for that, and I guess you want some more.

Here you go.

Once again --- asked for a source, he goes to some unconnected Googly Image, affirming once again that he doesn't have one.

See you again on day four. We'll run the same drill again and you can even find a different irrelevant Googly Image. Fun for the feebleminded.

You're the feeble one, that can't remember the low point of the last election.

My point was just a reference to what a divisive piece of shit Hillary was being.

Do you have a point? Or are you just here to fill the thread with meaningless pap?

I see we're on to Day Five. Time for a recap.

Day One: statement, no link.
Day Two: still no link.
Day Three: still still no link.
Day Four: repeat of day three.
Day Five: Link-free

 

[Correll]

I meant what I said, you know the quote I am referring to, I've given you my take on it, if you disagree, then explain why you disagree, and stop playing silly games.


Hillary smeared half the nation as "deplorabe".

That's extremely divisive.

AND, to be clear, the people she was smearing are good people, that she falsely smeared.

Her accusations were lies, and she is a piece of shit.

And now we're on to day three of the same unsourced quote.

They're making strawmen more durable these days. This one's made with special ingredient ™

Of course in your own defense this entire thread is based on a fake news site so at least you're on topic.

My point stands. Hillary was being very divisive when she smeared half the nation as "Deplorable".

You claim that you need that sourced, that you are not aware of the quote, I've laughed at you repeatedly for that, and I guess you want some more.

Here you go.

Once again --- asked for a source, he goes to some unconnected Googly Image, affirming once again that he doesn't have one.

See you again on day four. We'll run the same drill again and you can even find a different irrelevant Googly Image. Fun for the feebleminded.

You're the feeble one, that can't remember the low point of the last election.

My point was just a reference to what a divisive piece of shit Hillary was being.

Do you have a point? Or are you just here to fill the thread with meaningless pap?

I see we're on to Day Five. Time for a recap.

Day One: statement, no link.
Day Two: still no link.
Day Three: still still no link.
Day Four: repeat of day three.
Day Five: Link-free

Five days of you pretending that you are unaware of the low point of the last campaign.


NO ONE is falling for your nonsense.


If you have a point to make, you are welcome to make it.


I am not going to coddle you, by pretending yours stupid little game is anything worthy of addressing.

 

[ColonelAngus]

That’s not very tolerant.

I thought it was bad to stereotype.