Discussion about hot topics trending today

[LtColCarter]

And who died and appointed you as someone to judge anyone as a "failed human being" ?

As to why anyone would want him for President, there are many reasons. Here are but a few.

• Nominating conservatives to the judiciary; beginning to undo the left bias it has displayed for many years.
  
• Withdrawing us from harmful trade agreements that would have been or were harmful to this country's well-being.
  
• And on a related note, making foreign and other policies which benefit US interests foremost, rather than the interests of other nations and the globalists in general.
  
• Establishing control over our borders, and finally carrying out immigration reform which has been needed for decades.
  
• Undoing harmful policies set by the previous administration, such as Obamacare
  
• Reigning in over-active regulatory agencies such as the E.P.A and the Education dept.

I can continue, but I think you get the point. There are a great many reasons that people would vote for Trump or someone else pushing the same agenda. You may not agree with them, and that is your right. But obviously, enough people did agree with them where he did take the election by the rules in place.

He may not have been able to completely achieve all of these and other ideas he has, but at least he is trying to push us in what I and many others consider to be the right direction.

Even the gist of your post shows one of the biggest flaws of people on the left; you think that you are better than or more properly equipped to make judgements; you just take the position that your views are superior and other viewpoints are to be disregarded as unworthy.

Your views are worth the exact same as anyone else's, whether you agree with them or you disagree with them. To borrow a phrase, "No one died and made you God"

Dude...I never claimed I am better than anyone else or better to make judgements. I was not making a judgement. If you'd pull your head out of your Trump Kool-Aid and read what I said...you would see that. Mango Mussolini is a FAILED businessman (many times over), he is a FAILED husband (many times over...heck...he CHEATED on his PREGNANT porn star wife).

The biggest reason people voted for the misogynist, homophobic, racist who is in office is to get the black man out. I have people in my own extended family, who were life long Democrats, who voted republicant for the first time just because Obama was black. They would believe he was a Muslim, which he wasn't. If Michelle Obama wore clothes that showed her shoulders, she was ridiculed. However, Mango Mussolini has a porn star wife, and the hypocritical right doesn't bat an eye.

I am entitled to my own opinion that has been tempered by knowledge of Mango Mussolini since the 1980s. I am not God, I made no such claim. You can protect your child-god trump if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a failure who is taking this country down the crapper.

[Annoyed]

The biggest reason people voted for the misogynist, homophobic, racist who is in office is to get the black man out. I have people in my own extended family, who were life long Democrats, who voted republicant for the first time just because Obama was black. They would believe he was a Muslim, which he wasn't. If Michelle Obama wore clothes that showed her shoulders, she was ridiculed. However, Mango Mussolini has a porn star wife, and the hypocritical right doesn't bat an eye.

Don't even try to drag race into this. It has nothing to do with it. The "Black Man" was out in any case, term limits, don't ya know. He wasn't eligible to run!

The race was between Hillary and Trump.

Just because a politician or anybody, really is one race or another doesn't automatically mean opposition to him or her is based upon that characteristic.

I despised Obama because of his POLICIES, not his skin color, and I chose Trump over Hillary for the same reason; I prefer Trump's POLICIES to that of Hillary.

But it's easier to make an assumption that opposition is based on race or gender or whatever, rather than to accept that some people just think his or her policies and ideas suck, isn't it?

[SoulReaver]

Don't even try to drag race into this. It has nothing to do with it. The "Black Man" was out in any case, term limits, don't ya know. He wasn't eligible to run!

would you vote for someone like Herman Cain (last name is fitting), David Clarke (Joe Arpaio's disciple), Omarosa (white house resident witch) or Dr Ben [Mengele] Carson if they ran for presidency?

As to why anyone would want him for President, there are many reasons. Here are but a few.

[*]Nominating conservatives to the judiciary

in other words end civil liberties & establish the united s-holes of america
in particular Andrew Finch's chance of getting justice (federal charges) will be slim to none
if you want to incite the people to carry out a freedom strike & restablish democracy via non-legal means this is the way (that said most americans are pushovers so the breaking point would be very high)

[*]And on a related note, making foreign and other policies which benefit US interests foremost, rather than the interests of other nations and the globalists in general.

like King Don's own products made in Ghina?

[*]Establishing control over our borders, and finally carrying out immigration reform which has been needed for decades.

what of jobs americans won't do?

[*]Undoing harmful policies set by the previous administration, such as Obamacare

the problem with this one is it didn't go far enough (but - granted - I reckon you've a legit reason to be pissed at that one)

[*]Reigning in over-active regulatory agencies such as the E.P.A and the Education dept.

because Sanctity of Life also means babies have the right to be exposed to toxic chemicals

[mad_gater]

would you vote for someone like Herman Cain (last name is fitting), David Clarke (Joe Arpaio's disciple), Omarosa (white house resident witch) or Dr Ben [Mengele] Carson if they ran for presidency?

in other words end civil liberties & establish the united s-holes of america
in particular Andrew Finch's chance of getting justice (federal charges) will be slim to none
if you want to incite the people to carry out a freedom strike & restablish democracy via non-legal means this is the way (that said most americans are pushovers so the breaking point would be very high)

like King Don's own products made in Ghina?

what of jobs americans won't do?

the problem with this one is it didn't go far enough (but - granted - I reckon you've a legit reason to be pissed at that one)

because Sanctity of Life also means babies have the right to be exposed to toxic chemicals

you are aware that abolition and the civil rights act were begun and carried out largely by the Republican Party, right?

and don't even try the patently false "they changed party's" line....that line is as patently false as those God-awful tabloids you see in the checkout line at Walmart

[SoulReaver]

and don't even try the patently false "they changed party's" line....that line is as patently false as those God-awful tabloids you see in the checkout line at Walmart

they didn't change the party line they just changed the name to Democrat :|

btw you know your king loves Walmart no?

[Gatefan1976]

you are aware that abolition and the civil rights act were begun and carried out largely by the Republican Party, right?

and don't even try the patently false "they changed party's" line....that line is as patently false as those God-awful tabloids you see in the checkout line at Walmart

Look up the southern strategy, then look at the history of the south.
If you want to call that "fake news", you need to realign your view with the facts.

[Annoyed]

would you vote for someone like Herman Cain (last name is fitting), David Clarke (Joe Arpaio's disciple), Omarosa (white house resident witch) or Dr Ben [Mengele] Carson if they ran for presidency?

If the Republicans had run Carson, I would have voted for him. I did not support him in the Primaries, Trump ideas were closer to what I want but if he had been the Republican's choice, I would have voted for him.

in other words end civil liberties & establish the united s-holes of america
in particular Andrew Finch's chance of getting justice (federal charges) will be slim to none
if you want to incite the people to carry out a freedom strike & restablish democracy via non-legal means this is the way (that said most americans are pushovers so the breaking point would be very high)

A conservative judiciary is not about limiting citizen's rights. In fact, in many ways it limits the power of govt. to what is defined in the Constitution, rather than legislating from the bench as liberal jurists are prone to do, pulling new law out of thin air, or in some cases outright defying the will of the voters.

what of jobs americans won't do?

They may not do them for pittance wages and no benefits, but if you offer enough $ and benefits, you will find people to do those jobs. While on this topic, you seem to favor allowing illegal and other immigrants to fill low wage jobs. You do realize that this means you are in favor of lowering prices on the products they produce by subsidizing the costs with their sub-par wages, right? I thought you always backed the little guy? It doesn't seem so in this case.

[Falcon Horus]

...but if you offer enough $ and benefits...

Now if only that weren't the problem in the first place...

Also,

Liberal bias: Gorsuch voted with your liberals on deporting criminals. Trump's already complaining he's turning liberal.

Trump als wants to get back into TPP -- the other countries who signed the agreement said no -- well, not really no but basically it was a no.

[Gatefan1976]

If the Republicans had run Carson, I would have voted for him. I did not support him in the Primaries, Trump ideas were closer to what I want but if he had been the Republican's choice, I would have voted for him.

In other words, party is more important than capability.
Gotcha.

A conservative judiciary is not about limiting citizen's rights. In fact, in many ways it limits the power of govt. to what is defined in the Constitution, rather than legislating from the bench as liberal jurists are prone to do, pulling new law out of thin air, or in some cases outright defying the will of the voters.

Don't talk about the law, you have no knowledge of it, nor show any willingness to learn it. You have "this should be right or wrong because I feel it is right"

They may not do them for pittance wages and no benefits, but if you offer enough $ and benefits, you will find people to do those jobs. While on this topic, you seem to favor allowing illegal and other immigrants to fill low wage jobs. You do realize that this means you are in favor of lowering prices on the products they produce by subsidizing the costs with their sub-par wages, right? I thought you always backed the little guy? It doesn't seem so in this case.

You pulled that out of your butt.

[Annoyed]

In other words, party is more important than capability.
Gotcha.

It would have been damned hard for them to come up with anyone that I wouldn't choose over Hillary.
If they had offered a JFK, or even Sanders, I would have considered them. But no way Hillary gets my vote.

[LtColCarter]

It would have been damned hard for them to come up with anyone that I wouldn't choose over Hillary.
If they had offered a JFK, or even Sanders, I would have considered them. But no way Hillary gets my vote.

See...there are quite a few republicants who I know who voted for Hillary because they couldn't stomach Mango Mussolini. Then again, I know there are both Democrats and republicants who didn't vote because they couldn't stand either candidate. Do I think Hillary was the "perfect" candidate...heck no. However, she's not some immoral man-child.

[SoulReaver]

If the Republicans had run Carson, I would have voted for him. I did not support him in the Primaries, Trump ideas were closer to what I want but if he had been the Republican's choice, I would have voted for him.

cept that SOB is greedy dishonest & corrupt AF (not to mention he always looks stoned)
in other words fully qualified for King Don's administration

A conservative judiciary is not about limiting citizen's rights. In fact, in many ways it limits the power of govt. to what is defined in the Constitution, rather than legislating from the bench as liberal jurists are prone to do, pulling new law out of thin air, or in some cases outright defying the will of the voters.

when citizens have been deprived of rights or not given justice by local authorities then federal charges against the local government is the only recourse right? so what happens if the federal judges (who are conservative) deny them their rights once again?

They may not do them for pittance wages and no benefits, but if you offer enough $ and benefits, you will find people to do those jobs.

businesses are used to paying them lower wages. you really think they'll accept to pay higher just cause the employee's a bnb merican? LMAO

While on this topic, you seem to favor allowing illegal and other immigrants to fill low wage jobs. You do realize that this means you are in favor of lowering prices on the products they produce by subsidizing the costs with their sub-par wages, right? I thought you always backed the little guy? It doesn't seem so in this case.

I was waiting for that argument
it's all about relativity

you realize that for those immigrants even those jobs will lower wages in a western country (even the US) are a YUGE improvement over their living conditions in their own country right?
so in the end everyone wins: they win cause their own income & living conditions will improve, citizens win cause they don't have to do those jobs (form their point of view their living conditions would get worse not better), and corporations win cause they pay less, everyone happy see?

[SGalisa]

In other words, party is more important than capability.
Gotcha.

It would have been damned hard for them to come up with anyone that I wouldn't choose over Hillary.
If they had offered a JFK, or even Sanders, I would have considered them. But no way Hillary gets my vote.

See...there are quite a few republicants who I know who voted for Hillary because they couldn't stomach Mango Mussolini. Then again, I know there are both Democrats and republicants who didn't vote because they couldn't stand either candidate. Do I think Hillary was the "perfect" candidate...heck no. However, she's not some immoral man-child.

Here is sort of an Extension of the above...

USA Democrats & TPTB in charge are proving how much they like wasting TAXPAYER money on how power-hungry/mad they are and tossing huge portions of it into non-essential stuff... like investigations such as the "made-up" dossier (PP) story.

If this disturbing *trend* is what they do now, what will they do once they regain back complete power control..? That is the question and disturbing on many levels.

"Trump-Russia 'collusion': Democrats file lawsuit"
BBC news, 20 April 2018

The Democratic Party in the US is suing Russia, the Trump campaign and the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks for conspiring to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.

Documents filed in court allege that the campaign "gleefully accepted Russia's help" to win the election.
. . .
"This frivolous lawsuit is a last-ditch effort to substantiate the baseless Russian collusion allegations by a nearly-bankrupt Democratic Party still trying to counter the will of the people in the 2016 presidential election," a statement from the Donald J Trump for President campaign said.

US intelligence agencies previously concluded Moscow had tried to sway the election in Mr Trump's favour.
. . .

Wow. It's surprising the Dems didn't also toss Dinesh D'Souza's documentary on "Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" into that lawsuit as well.

All around dumb lawsuit.
General consensus (among many POVs elsewhere on internet--NOT done in polls) has been and still *is* STOP wasting TAXPayer money, and apply it to more productive projects, please! But Dems&Company see the pursuit of these lawsuits as being "productive"
while the rest of us/US do NOT.

Those who lived during Bill Clinton's presidency didn't care for certain things that occurred (gov-secrets given over to China.. that sort of stuff), figured it would be more of the same under Hillary, except maybe worse since she has a trail of "dead body" rumors following her, for those who were very vocal against her in the past.

For everyone else who have either read the (conspiracy) papers over the years, or watched Dinesh D'Souza's documentary on "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" -- well, they've got a similar complaint issues against Hillary's policies. It's NOT because she is female, it *is* because of her policies on *why* they didn't vote for her.

Many people saw the USA being pulled apart and thrown into racial wars, under President Obama's reign, when he *had* the ability to pull our nation and world together -- yet, many cities in the USA saw the exact opposite occur (Baltimore(MD), Ferguson(MO), parts of Oregon, Washington State). In addition, those same areas also experienced violent destruction occur damaging entire blocks of businesses, which most insurance companies were not set up to handle massive amounts of vandalism, such as what happened then. People causing deliberate damage is NOT regarded as "an act of Nature", which is more weather and geological affected.

The chasms caused by certain individual persons is NOT what many Americans wanted to see happen, and certainly didn't want it to continue, regardless of "who" they voted for.

[Annoyed]

I was waiting for that argument
it's all about relativity

you realize that for those immigrants even those jobs will lower wages in a western country (even the US) are a YUGE improvement over their living conditions in their own country right?
so in the end everyone wins: they win cause their own income & living conditions will improve, citizens win cause they don't have to do those jobs (form their point of view their living conditions would get worse not better), and corporations win cause they pay less, everyone happy see?

The availability of those low wage illegals or in some cases legal immigrants applies downward pressure on wages for U.S. citizens competing for the same jobs.

Take fruit picking, one of the jobs that many claim US workers won't do. If there were no "discount workers" available to them, businesses would have to pay whatever wage rate it takes to get US citizens to do the job, or the fruit rots on the vine. You put up a help wanted ad offering $30 bucks an hour + benefits to get people to pick your cherry orchards (or whatever) and you will get a lot of applicants. Offer $10 / Hour, with no benefits and you won't get many applicants; no one would want to do that work for those wages.

Add illegals to the labor pool, who will do it for $10/Hour, and what business is going to pay the US worker the higher wage?

The presence of the illegals in the labor pool forces wage rates down, which is harmful to the US workers who might otherwise be able to earn a living picking that fruit.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that the cost of cherries will skyrocket to the point of unaffordability. But that higher price is the true cost of growing and bringing those cherries to market. Business subsidizes that production cost with the labor of the illegals at below market rates. In effect, those illegals are paying the difference between actual prices and the true market value with their labor at discount rates.

Why aren't any of the people who are pro-illegal raising that as an issue? After all, they're supposed to be so concerned about the welfare of the illegals.

[Annoyed]

Here is sort of an Extension of the above...

USA Democrats & TPTB in charge are proving how much they like wasting TAXPAYER money on how power-hungry/mad they are and tossing huge portions of it into non-essential stuff... like investigations such as the "made-up" dossier (PP) story.

If this disturbing *trend* is what they do now, what will they do once they regain back complete power control..? That is the question and disturbing on many levels.



Wow. It's surprising the Dems didn't also toss Dinesh D'Souza's documentary on "Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" into that lawsuit as well.

All around dumb lawsuit.
General consensus (among many POVs elsewhere on internet--NOT done in polls) has been and still *is* STOP wasting TAXPayer money, and apply it to more productive projects, please! But Dems&Company see the pursuit of these lawsuits as being "productive"
while the rest of us/US do NOT.

Those who lived during Bill Clinton's presidency didn't care for certain things that occurred (gov-secrets given over to China.. that sort of stuff), figured it would be more of the same under Hillary, except maybe worse since she has a trail of "dead body" rumors following her, for those who were very vocal against her in the past.

For everyone else who have either read the (conspiracy) papers over the years, or watched Dinesh D'Souza's documentary on "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" -- well, they've got a similar complaint issues against Hillary's policies. It's NOT because she is female, it *is* because of her policies on *why* they didn't vote for her.

Many people saw the USA being pulled apart and thrown into racial wars, under President Obama's reign, when he *had* the ability to pull our nation and world together -- yet, many cities in the USA saw the exact opposite occur (Baltimore(MD), Ferguson(MO), parts of Oregon, Washington State). In addition, those same areas also experienced violent destruction occur damaging entire blocks of businesses, which most insurance companies were not set up to handle massive amounts of vandalism, such as what happened then. People causing deliberate damage is NOT regarded as "an act of Nature", which is more weather and geological affected.

The chasms caused by certain individual persons is NOT what many Americans wanted to see happen, and certainly didn't want it to continue, regardless of "who" they voted for.

Yeah, I saw that.. the idiots at the DNC are trying to achieve in civil court what they could not prove with Mueller's investigation, same damned thing that happened in the OJ Simpson case; they couldn't get a conviction in criminal court, so let's try civil court, where the standards of proof are lower.

Why can't they just admit the ran a lousy candidate, learn from their mistake and move on? In anything, accepting your mistake and learning from it is the first step to doing it better next time.

Regarding polling, I strongly suspect that the polls are severely underestimating support for Trump and the Republicans. People who do support Trump and the Republicans are subject to a lot of harassment, ridicule and other negative behavior directed towards them from from the left-leaning part of society. While they strongly support Trump, they keep quiet about it so as to fly under the radar, so to speak.

This might be why everyone was shocked when Trump won in 2016, and will likely be relevant this year, and in 2020 too.