Trump cries when called out for attacking women

[bripat9643]

Why do you imagine I'm supposed to know the answer to that question?

I don't. Just like I know you don't know that Hillary is paying playtime to post here. Thanks for playin'.

BUSTED: Pro-Clinton Super PAC Caught Spending $1 Million on Social Media Trolls

What the fuck is wrong with the diseased brains of you rightards? You must have straw for brain matter that you fight with strawmen.

Showing that a superpac is paying folks to troll social media in no way proves Hillary is paying playtime to post here.

Did I say I have proof, moron?

No, but I just wanted to make sure everyone sees you're just making shit up again from your fervent imagination. Again, thanks for playin'! I couldn't have done it without you.

I'm just yanking his chain, you fucking dumbass.

 

[Faun]

I don't. Just like I know you don't know that Hillary is paying playtime to post here. Thanks for playin'.

BUSTED: Pro-Clinton Super PAC Caught Spending $1 Million on Social Media Trolls

What the fuck is wrong with the diseased brains of you rightards? You must have straw for brain matter that you fight with strawmen.

Showing that a superpac is paying folks to troll social media in no way proves Hillary is paying playtime to post here.

Did I say I have proof, moron?

No, but I just wanted to make sure everyone sees you're just making shit up again from your fervent imagination. Again, thanks for playin'! I couldn't have done it without you.

I'm just yanking his chain, you fucking dumbass.

You should take iron supplements to make up for your irony deficiency.

 

[Markle]

only in your delusional world. wanting that to be true does not make it so, grasshoppa. you don't give a god damn that the man you want to put in office has zero substance, but as long as he appeals to your inner paranoia, then it's all good.

Amusing.

In your opinion, Donald Trump has "zero substance". And yet, he has built a multi-billion dollar empire, has a family of wonderful, intelligent hard working children and is one of the top executives in the world. Oh, that's right, he is also running for the top EXECUTIVE job in our country.

He also eliminated sixteen highly qualified, well financed in far less time than anyone, except himself, thought possible.

What are Crooked Hillary Clinton's accomplishments?

 

[Markle]

ya, that penthouse in trump towers = his companies aren't making a profit.

wtf is wrong with you?

Please show us the reliable source and link to your allegation that "his companies aren't making a profit".

Or, do you prefer to simply admit you are lying?

 

[Markle]

my god, how weak are you? TONS of products, not just men's suits are available. but you want that exclusive list? jesus H. you are lazy too...

men's suits made in usa - Google Search

Your utter desperation is duly noted.

Donald Trump has a business interest in how many companies?

 

[Markle]

Negative 14?

It was negative 54 when Bush left office,

Thanks for showing yet another indicator that we are better off now than when Obama first entered office,

Your utter desperation is duly noted.

EIGHT YEARS and Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama has yet to bring the economy out of the doldrums. Negatives, and the first time in history that a President has never had the GDP never reached above 3%.

Would you like to go into the increase in the rate of poverty, on welfare, food stamps, the drop in the typical household income?

You are indeed amusing!

 

[Faun]

Negative 14?

It was negative 54 when Bush left office,

Thanks for showing yet another indicator that we are better off now than when Obama first entered office,

Your utter desperation is duly noted.

EIGHT YEARS and Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama has yet to bring the economy out of the doldrums. Negatives, and the first time in history that a President has never had the GDP never reached above 3%.

Would you like to go into the increase in the rate of poverty, on welfare, food stamps, the drop in the typical household income?

You are indeed amusing!

Poor rightard. Is -14 better or worse than -54?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Showing that a superpac is paying folks to troll social media in no way proves Hillary is paying playtime to post here.

Oh yeah what about the Hillary Jade Helms Benghazi incident....in Texas...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I'm just yanking his chain, you fucking dumbass.

you are one of the dumbest and most shrill nasty ass Rightwing ratzos..we are taking your cheese bitch boy LOL Fuck U Trump..we laugh at you
It seems likely that Trump being Trump has damaged his popularity—not necessarily with the conservative voters who have faithfully supported him, but with women who make up the broader electorate. “The Republican primary electorate is going to be more forgiving of him,” said Kelly Dittmar, a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “But when he tries to win over female swing voters, those moderates at the center, and unmarried women who will be key to this election, they may be more offended by things he has said than women who were already in his camp.”
Can Democrats Defeat A Presidential Candidate Who Seems Invincible?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

U.S. Economic Confidence Down in April

LOL

Consumer spending scores biggest jump in 7 years
USA TODAY-May 31, 2016
“After a six-month lull, consumers emerged able and willing to spend more freely in early spring,” economist Greg Daco of Oxford Economics wrote in a note to clients.

Strong consumption -- which makes up 70% of economic activity -- could push economic growth above 3% at an annual rate in the current quarter after output edged up a feeble 0.8% early this year, says Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors.

 

[Correll]

His quote, that you posted, stated that Trump's campaign was based on lies.

I understand that you didn't really read his quote. YOu saw negativity about TRump and that was the end of your thinking on the quote.

Thus, my comment about the central themes of Trump's campaign being TRUE was completely focused on your post. It is kind of retarded that you couldn't make that connection on your own.


And deporting "record numbers" is irrelevant is the population of illegals is ELEVEN FUCKING MILLION.

It remains the same bullshit it was when you first posted it. We already have record deportations. Not irrelevant to the discussion of illegal aliens simply because you wish it to be. We have about as many illegal aliens in this country as we did when Obama became president, which is a decline when factoring in population growth. So here comes another challenge you will run from like you did the last time... prove that contributed to wage increases...

The metric to measure the problem is not number of deportations, but the size of the illegal population.

11 million is a disaster.

What ever we are doing, it is obviously completely insufficient.



??? You think that the tiny "relative" drop in Illegal population, MAYBE, must either show an increase in wages OR the Law of Supply and Demand have been debunked?

YOu are being silly again.

No, I challenged you to show the decrease affected wage increases. The ratio of illegal aliens to the U.S. population has shrunk by about 6% since Obama became president. Prove your claim by proving that 6% increased wages.

Or run from your claim like you did when you claimed a corrupt media is the reason Obama's JAR is higher than Reagan's was at this point.

Your question includes the absurd strawman that I or Trump was claiming that illegals are the ONLY factor suppressing wages, which is nonsense on your part.


It also assumes that the count of a population that is illegal and thus purposefully being evasive is counted perfectly.


Which is also absurd.



DO you really believe that the Law of Supply and Demand does NOT apply to labor and wages?

Great, you throw another strawman,

I didn't challenge you to show the decrease in illegals are the ONLY factor. I challenged you to show it was A factor.

If you could have, you would have instead of relying on strawmen again.

1. If there is a large oversupply of cheap product and the SIZE of the oversupply drops very slightly, a reasonable person would NOT expect to see an immediate and/or proportional increase in price.

Which is the unreasonable bar you set.

2. If there are MULTIPLE factors causing a problem, a slight improvement in ONE of the factors, other factors such as an overall crappy economy and outsourcing, even if stable, which has not been established, could very well outweigh the tiny improvement.

3. An increase in population is ALSO an increase in supply of labor. Your assumption that an increase in the supply of labor, and thus a RELATIVE drop in the percentage of labor that is of one type, ie illegal, will result in an immediate and proportional improvement in price is not reasonable.

 

[Correll]

Sorry.

Normally with lefties, I can suspend disbelief and pretend that they are rational humans that talking to is not a complete waste of time.

But when you denied that the media is biased, I just, can't do it with you right now.

Maybe one of the other conservatives will do it, maybe I'll feel it more tonight or tomorrow.

Sadly, you're just fucking deranged.

Quote me saying the media isn't biased...

I've stated that the media is biased.

You have strongly attacked and ridiculed me for that position.

If you did not explicitly state that you were disagreeing with me (i can't be bothered to look) you certainly strongly implied it.


You seem to think the point of debate is to set up little gotchas, and that you score a point, when you successfully mislead someone as to what you meant.


IMO, that is fucking stupid, and the act of an asshole.


THe media is biased.

If you disagree, you're a delusional partisan hack.

If you don't then why the fuck are you making such a big deal about me stating the obvious?

I attack you because your being fucking retarded.. Like you are doing here again.

I didn't attack you because you claimed th the media is biased and I disagreed with you. If you could understand English, you would have noticed I never disagreed on that point.

I attacked you for saying the media is biased because I didn't ask you to prove the media is biased. I challenged you to prove most people get their news from what you classified as, "corrupt media." You couldn't meet that challenge so you tried throwing a strawman at me instead about how biased the media is.

Even worse for you -- I pointed out what you had done and you did it again. Both times not addressing my challenge before you finally gave up and confessed such data is hard to find.

You claimed Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's because of a corrupt media -- but you can't demonstrate most people get their news from left-wing media outlets. Failure to prove your claim reveals it's really a delusion and not a fact,

My link showed that the vast majority of the media is hard left.

That you can't make the leap from that to the realization that most people get their news filtered though a hard left filter is not credible.

Is this the type of word games that you play in court?

It's not a valid leap. 99% of the media could be left-leaning but if 99% of the population gets their news from the 1%, the 99% left-leaning media is irrelevant.

... .

If 99% of an industry is hard left, you would be hard pressed to create a news source that is not dominated by the hard left.


And if you did, it would be a lone voice out of tune in the chorus,


Why do you think Talk Radio EXPLODED like it did once Reagan got rid of the censorship of the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Because the HALF of the nation that wasn't lefty was STARVED for a news source that didn't hold them in contempt.

 

[Correll]

can anyone imagine reporters asking Hillary Clinton some tough questions about anything and she would start hollering "you are sleaze you are making me look bad"...I mean its outlandish the "Man Card" Trump is playing LOL...if Hillary Clinton did that the media would say she is "a hysterical emotional woman"

Who can imagine reporters asking HRC a tough question...about anything?

Personally, I like Donald Trump calling out reporters when they ask stupid questions.

From the White House:

WASHINGTON: A senior US official has made his feelings about the reporters who cover the White House perfectly clear: He doesn't think much of them.

In return, reporters who cover the White House say they aren't all that thrilled with him.

Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, asserted that cutbacks in the news business had weakened the depth and range of White House reporting. "All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don't," he said in a story published earlier this month in The New York Times magazine . "They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington."

Mr Rhodes dug in deeper, adding, "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."

[...]

Read more: Hard feelings after White House describes reporters as knowing 'nothing'

I had a buddy who worked as a reporter for a while.

He was assigned to interview an author, and the author was shocked, when in the course of the interview, he realized that my friend had read the guys book that the interview was about.

Reporters often know NOTHING about what they are talking about.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Look at this shit LOL She calls him "thin skinned"...he goes out and proves it LOL

LOL Hilary Clinton has Trump in a full blown Melt down LOL its like she poured salt on a toad woo hoo


Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump lashed out at Hillary Clinton after her "phony" foreign policy speech Thursday, continuing to hit her hard over her private email server.

“Remember I said I’m a counter-puncher? I am. After what she said about me today in her phony speech — that was a phony speech, that was a Donald Trump hit job — I will say this: Hillary Clinton has to go to jail," he said at a rally in San Jose, Calif., Thursday night.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Reporters often know NOTHING about what they are talking about.

That is awesome that you and reporters have that in common eh
June 1, 2016 Was Trump University A $40 Million Dollar Fraud? (VIDEO)

 

[Faun]

Sadly, you're just fucking deranged.

Quote me saying the media isn't biased...

I've stated that the media is biased.

You have strongly attacked and ridiculed me for that position.

If you did not explicitly state that you were disagreeing with me (i can't be bothered to look) you certainly strongly implied it.


You seem to think the point of debate is to set up little gotchas, and that you score a point, when you successfully mislead someone as to what you meant.


IMO, that is fucking stupid, and the act of an asshole.


THe media is biased.

If you disagree, you're a delusional partisan hack.

If you don't then why the fuck are you making such a big deal about me stating the obvious?

I attack you because your being fucking retarded.. Like you are doing here again.

I didn't attack you because you claimed th the media is biased and I disagreed with you. If you could understand English, you would have noticed I never disagreed on that point.

I attacked you for saying the media is biased because I didn't ask you to prove the media is biased. I challenged you to prove most people get their news from what you classified as, "corrupt media." You couldn't meet that challenge so you tried throwing a strawman at me instead about how biased the media is.

Even worse for you -- I pointed out what you had done and you did it again. Both times not addressing my challenge before you finally gave up and confessed such data is hard to find.

You claimed Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's because of a corrupt media -- but you can't demonstrate most people get their news from left-wing media outlets. Failure to prove your claim reveals it's really a delusion and not a fact,

My link showed that the vast majority of the media is hard left.

That you can't make the leap from that to the realization that most people get their news filtered though a hard left filter is not credible.

Is this the type of word games that you play in court?

It's not a valid leap. 99% of the media could be left-leaning but if 99% of the population gets their news from the 1%, the 99% left-leaning media is irrelevant.

... .

If 99% of an industry is hard left, you would be hard pressed to create a news source that is not dominated by the hard left.


And if you did, it would be a lone voice out of tune in the chorus,


Why do you think Talk Radio EXPLODED like it did once Reagan got rid of the censorship of the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Because the HALF of the nation that wasn't lefty was STARVED for a news source that didn't hold them in contempt.

The point of my 99% left wing media example is to demonstrate that showing how left wing the media is does not show how many people get their news from it, which is what actually matters on terms of shaping public opinion.

 

[Dragonlady]

do you think he actually wears any of his cheap suits made in mexico & china while railing against mexico & china?

Irrelevant to anything I have said or any of the issues.


My point stands.


He is not a fraud.

He has a public persona that is a well designed tool.

That does not mean that he is not serious about his stated intentions or policies.

He stated polices on Trade and Immigration and Russia are almost exact matches for my positions on those issues.

AND those are the issues I care about the most.

hmmm.... so, you don't mind that he rails against 'jobs going to mexico & china' but sets up shop in mexico & china?

sounds mighty hypocritical.

so, you have a problem about illegals coming here & taking jobs away from americans?

....

He wants to deport illegals and bring back manufacturing jobs.

He is the only one.

IMO, that is exactly what America needs.

THe rest is unimportant.

He is incapable of doing either. Corporations will continue to offshore because profit is their only goal. As long as they can write off their expenses to move equipment and jobs to foreign jurisdictions, they will.

And if Trump tries to force them to come back, they'll move their operations to a foreign country.

Deporting 11 million people requires a massive amount of resources. Who's paying for it? Extra police, prosecutors, holding facilities lawyers, courtrooms and transportation costs. Estimated cost: $400 - $600 billion.

Trump's Deportation Plan 'Prohibitively Expensive'

And the other stuff matters - a LOT.

Corporations will stop offshoring when it's cheaper for them to keep their operations here. Of course, that won't happen so long as commie douche bags like you insist on treating them like enemies and imposing crushing taxes and regulations on them.

Your cost estimate for deporting 11 million illegals is about 20 times the actual figure, but don't sweat it. No one expects commie douche bags to tell the truth about anything.

That wasn't my estimate of costs. The link I posted was a piece in Forbes, the right wing business magazine.

It currently costs $10,000 per person to deport an illegal. That included costs of apprehension, holding, court costs, and travel back to wherever.

Try multiplying that number by 11 million.

 

[bripat9643]

Irrelevant to anything I have said or any of the issues.


My point stands.


He is not a fraud.

He has a public persona that is a well designed tool.

That does not mean that he is not serious about his stated intentions or policies.

He stated polices on Trade and Immigration and Russia are almost exact matches for my positions on those issues.

AND those are the issues I care about the most.

hmmm.... so, you don't mind that he rails against 'jobs going to mexico & china' but sets up shop in mexico & china?

sounds mighty hypocritical.

so, you have a problem about illegals coming here & taking jobs away from americans?

....

He wants to deport illegals and bring back manufacturing jobs.

He is the only one.

IMO, that is exactly what America needs.

THe rest is unimportant.

He is incapable of doing either. Corporations will continue to offshore because profit is their only goal. As long as they can write off their expenses to move equipment and jobs to foreign jurisdictions, they will.

And if Trump tries to force them to come back, they'll move their operations to a foreign country.

Deporting 11 million people requires a massive amount of resources. Who's paying for it? Extra police, prosecutors, holding facilities lawyers, courtrooms and transportation costs. Estimated cost: $400 - $600 billion.

Trump's Deportation Plan 'Prohibitively Expensive'

And the other stuff matters - a LOT.

Corporations will stop offshoring when it's cheaper for them to keep their operations here. Of course, that won't happen so long as commie douche bags like you insist on treating them like enemies and imposing crushing taxes and regulations on them.

Your cost estimate for deporting 11 million illegals is about 20 times the actual figure, but don't sweat it. No one expects commie douche bags to tell the truth about anything.

That wasn't my estimate of costs. The link I posted was a piece in Forbes, the right wing business magazine.

It currently costs $10,000 per person to deport an illegal. That included costs of apprehension, holding, court costs, and travel back to wherever.

Try multiplying that number by 11 million.

10,000 X 11 million =110 billion, douche bag, not 600 billion. Furthermore, the process could be greatly stream lined thereby reducing the cost to less than $5000. Even at $110 billion, it's well worth the cost.

 

[Faun]

hmmm.... so, you don't mind that he rails against 'jobs going to mexico & china' but sets up shop in mexico & china?

sounds mighty hypocritical.

so, you have a problem about illegals coming here & taking jobs away from americans?

....

He wants to deport illegals and bring back manufacturing jobs.

He is the only one.

IMO, that is exactly what America needs.

THe rest is unimportant.

He is incapable of doing either. Corporations will continue to offshore because profit is their only goal. As long as they can write off their expenses to move equipment and jobs to foreign jurisdictions, they will.

And if Trump tries to force them to come back, they'll move their operations to a foreign country.

Deporting 11 million people requires a massive amount of resources. Who's paying for it? Extra police, prosecutors, holding facilities lawyers, courtrooms and transportation costs. Estimated cost: $400 - $600 billion.

Trump's Deportation Plan 'Prohibitively Expensive'

And the other stuff matters - a LOT.

Corporations will stop offshoring when it's cheaper for them to keep their operations here. Of course, that won't happen so long as commie douche bags like you insist on treating them like enemies and imposing crushing taxes and regulations on them.

Your cost estimate for deporting 11 million illegals is about 20 times the actual figure, but don't sweat it. No one expects commie douche bags to tell the truth about anything.

That wasn't my estimate of costs. The link I posted was a piece in Forbes, the right wing business magazine.

It currently costs $10,000 per person to deport an illegal. That included costs of apprehension, holding, court costs, and travel back to wherever.

Try multiplying that number by 11 million.

10,000 X 11 million =110 billion, douche bag, not 600 billion. Furthermore, the process could be greatly stream lined thereby greatly to less than $5000. Even at $110 billion, it's well worth the cost.

A 2015 study by the American Action Forum, a conservative pro-immigration group, estimates the federal government would have to spend roughly $400 billion to $600 billion to deport 11.3 million undocumented immigrants and prevent future unlawful entry into the U.S. over a 20 year time period.

- Forbes

 

[Correll]

I've stated that the media is biased.

You have strongly attacked and ridiculed me for that position.

If you did not explicitly state that you were disagreeing with me (i can't be bothered to look) you certainly strongly implied it.


You seem to think the point of debate is to set up little gotchas, and that you score a point, when you successfully mislead someone as to what you meant.


IMO, that is fucking stupid, and the act of an asshole.


THe media is biased.

If you disagree, you're a delusional partisan hack.

If you don't then why the fuck are you making such a big deal about me stating the obvious?

I attack you because your being fucking retarded.. Like you are doing here again.

I didn't attack you because you claimed th the media is biased and I disagreed with you. If you could understand English, you would have noticed I never disagreed on that point.

I attacked you for saying the media is biased because I didn't ask you to prove the media is biased. I challenged you to prove most people get their news from what you classified as, "corrupt media." You couldn't meet that challenge so you tried throwing a strawman at me instead about how biased the media is.

Even worse for you -- I pointed out what you had done and you did it again. Both times not addressing my challenge before you finally gave up and confessed such data is hard to find.

You claimed Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's because of a corrupt media -- but you can't demonstrate most people get their news from left-wing media outlets. Failure to prove your claim reveals it's really a delusion and not a fact,

My link showed that the vast majority of the media is hard left.

That you can't make the leap from that to the realization that most people get their news filtered though a hard left filter is not credible.

Is this the type of word games that you play in court?

It's not a valid leap. 99% of the media could be left-leaning but if 99% of the population gets their news from the 1%, the 99% left-leaning media is irrelevant.

... .

If 99% of an industry is hard left, you would be hard pressed to create a news source that is not dominated by the hard left.


And if you did, it would be a lone voice out of tune in the chorus,


Why do you think Talk Radio EXPLODED like it did once Reagan got rid of the censorship of the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Because the HALF of the nation that wasn't lefty was STARVED for a news source that didn't hold them in contempt.

The point of my 99% left wing media example is to demonstrate that showing how left wing the media is does not show how many people get their news from it, which is what actually matters on terms of shaping public opinion.

Yeah, I got your point.

It's nonsensical.

If the vast majority of an industry is hard left, the vast majority of the product available will be filtered by a Hard Left world view, AT BEST.

If there is not actual lies and purposefully propaganda.


Which we have seen examples of (paging Dan Rather).

If one or two sources have somewhat higher ratings, because they aren't vile leftists, that doesn't defeat the overall narrative of the Hard Left.