Donald Trump is running for president

[RIP sleazyy]

all them sentences, and yet Hillary is where's at cuz of slick willie... period.

rode them coat tails for decades expecting a coronation to da Presidency

Hillary a loser without her husband, straight facts.

but like i said before, until da conventions pass, this is all hot air & partisan bloviating.

ya betta hope da FBI dont hang her..da Attorney General aint gonna save her since she effed up pow wowing wit slick willie on that Jet

This is straight nonsense. She was a success before Bill got on the National stage, and has been successful after his presidency.

so being kicked off an nixon investigation
is "success"?

da broad hasn't created a single job in her whole life, and her whole career trajectory of success was solely predicated on da exploits of Bill Clinton, and now her dumbass husband just got caught cooking da books wit da Attorney general on a plane in a private meeting.

I don't get the job creation jab. What is the relevance?

 

[Nike Jordan]

Collusion and corruption. Pillars of the Clinton machine. And Dems are just trying to brush it under the table.


And the Lynch came out yesterday saying she would go along with whatever the FBI investigation revealed. The hell was she going to do before? Fight it? Bury it? Spin it?

This is the Donald Trump thread.

 

[RustyShackleford]

all them sentences, and yet Hillary is where's at cuz of slick willie... period.

rode them coat tails for decades expecting a coronation to da Presidency

Hillary a loser without her husband, straight facts.

but like i said before, until da conventions pass, this is all hot air & partisan bloviating.

ya betta hope da FBI dont hang her..da Attorney General aint gonna save her since she effed up pow wowing wit slick willie on that Jet

This is straight nonsense. She was a success before Bill got on the National stage, and has been successful after his presidency.

so being kicked off an nixon investigation
is "success"?

da broad hasn't created a single job in her whole life, and her whole career trajectory of success was solely predicated on da exploits of Bill Clinton, and now her dumbass husband just got caught cooking da books wit da Attorney general on a plane in a private meeting.

I don't get the job creation jab. What is the relevance?

Ninja believes is supply side economics. Which is based on the assumption that rich people and large corporation "create jobs", so if they are given tax cuts, face lower regulations, get other benefits and are allowed to make as much money as easier as possible then they will share that wealth with the lower classes by creating jobs, so economic prosperity will "trickle down". It was a very popular theory during the 1980s and early 1990s, and conservatives still use it as an economic argument. Even though it has fallen out of favor with many economist

The alternative is believing in "demand side" policies. Basically that jobs are not created by the rich but by a large consumer base (a strong middle class) wanting (and willing to spend) of a product or service. In this case all tax credits, government programs, and other benefits would go to the lower and middle classes. They will demand more goods and services, and companies will then try to meet that demand by hiring more people to produce more good and provide both services.

Basically Ninja's shot at me and Hillary is that it doesn't matter how nonsensical Trump's economic plans sound on paper, he create jobs (Ninja believes in the supply side theory) so he strictly based on that act is better that Hillary in economics.

Most economist, liberal or conservative, classical or Keynesian, disagree with Ninja on this.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Collusion and corruption. Pillars of the Clinton machine. And Dems are just trying to brush it under the table.


And the Lynch came out yesterday saying she would go along with whatever the FBI investigation revealed. The hell was she going to do before? Fight it? Bury it? Spin it?

She and Obama have been saying for months they will go along with the FBI recommendation. She was just reiterating it.

Calm down baby girl

 

[ninjahood]

Collusion and corruption. Pillars of the Clinton machine. And Dems are just trying to brush it under the table.



And the Lynch came out yesterday saying she would go along with whatever the FBI investigation revealed. The hell was she going to do before? Fight it? Bury it? Spin it?

This is the Donald Trump liberal piñata thread.

 

[gry60]

all them sentences, and yet Hillary is where's at cuz of slick willie... period.

rode them coat tails for decades expecting a coronation to da Presidency

Hillary a loser without her husband, straight facts.

but like i said before, until da conventions pass, this is all hot air & partisan bloviating.

ya betta hope da FBI dont hang her..da Attorney General aint gonna save her since she effed up pow wowing wit slick willie on that Jet

This is straight nonsense. She was a success before Bill got on the National stage, and has been successful after his presidency.

so being kicked off an nixon investigation
is "success"?

da broad hasn't created a single job in her whole life, and her whole career trajectory of success was solely predicated on da exploits of Bill Clinton, and now her dumbass husband just got caught cooking da books wit da Attorney general on a plane in a private meeting.

I don't get the job creation jab. What is the relevance?

Ninja believes is supply side economics. Which is based on the assumption that rich people and large corporation "create jobs", so if they are given tax cuts, face lower regulations, get other benefits and are allowed to make as much money as easier as possible then they will share that wealth with the lower classes by creating jobs, so economic prosperity will "trickle down". It was a very popular theory during the 1980s and early 1990s, and conservatives still use it as an economic argument. Even though it has fallen out of favor with many economist

The alternative is believing in "demand side" policies. Basically that jobs are not created by the rich but by a large consumer base (a strong middle class) wanting (and willing to spend) of a product or service. In this case all tax credits, government programs, and other benefits would go to the lower and middle classes. They will demand more goods and services, and companies will then try to meet that demand by hiring more people to produce more good and provide both services.

Basically Ninja's shot at me and Hillary is that it doesn't matter how nonsensical Trump's economic plans sound on paper, he create jobs (Ninja believes in the supply side theory) so he strictly based on that act is better that Hillary in economics.

Most economist, liberal or conservative, classical or Keynesian, disagree with Ninja on this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-cut-them-guess-which-one-is-in-recession/

In 2012, voters in California approved a measure to raise taxes on millionaires, bringing their top state income tax rate to 13.3 percent, the highest in the nation. Conservative economists predicted calamity, or at least a big slowdown in growth. Also that year, the governor of Kansas signed a series of changes to the state's tax code, including reducing income and sales tax rates. Conservative economists predicted a boom.

Neither of those predictions came true. Not right away -- California grew just fine in the year the tax hikes took effect -- and especially not in the medium term, as new economic data showed this week.

Now, correlation does not, as they say, equal causation, and two examples are but a small sample. But the divergent experiences of California and Kansas run counter to a popular view, particularly among conservative economists, that tax cuts tend to supercharge growth and tax increases chill it.

California's economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, according to new numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, tying it with Oregon for the fastest state growth of the year. That was up from 3.1 percent growth for the Golden State in 2014, which was near the top of the national pack.

The Kansas economy, on the other hand, grew 0.2 percent in 2015. That's down from 1.2 percent in 2014, and below neighboring states such as Nebraska (2.1 percent) and Missouri (1.2 percent). Kansas ended the year with two consecutive quarters of negative growth -- a shrinking economy. By a common definition of the term, the state entered 2016 in recession.

 

[RustyShackleford]

all them sentences, and yet Hillary is where's at cuz of slick willie... period.

rode them coat tails for decades expecting a coronation to da Presidency

Hillary a loser without her husband, straight facts.

but like i said before, until da conventions pass, this is all hot air & partisan bloviating.

ya betta hope da FBI dont hang her..da Attorney General aint gonna save her since she effed up pow wowing wit slick willie on that Jet

This is straight nonsense. She was a success before Bill got on the National stage, and has been successful after his presidency.

so being kicked off an nixon investigation
is "success"?

da broad hasn't created a single job in her whole life, and her whole career trajectory of success was solely predicated on da exploits of Bill Clinton, and now her dumbass husband just got caught cooking da books wit da Attorney general on a plane in a private meeting.

This has been disproven plenty of times, she was on the committee until it was disbanded. The dude making the claims is a hardcore right-winger that hates Hillary and word is he wasn't her direct boss. Plus he made the claim in 2008, last time she was running for president. But failed to mention it in a book he wrote in 1995, which discusses Hillary's work on Watergate

You got this news from this right-wing meme didn't you.

LINK ANOTHER ONE

Once again because you refuse to use Google, you make yourself look uninformed and silly.

---------

Before she reached you age she was a IVY law school graduate, worked on one of the highest profile legal investigations in American history, a college professor, first director of the legal clinic at the university she was teaching at.

Matter of fact, here is a direct rip from her Wiki page, she accomplished all this before her mid 30s, so around your age.

[link]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Yale Law School and postgraduate studies
Rodham then entered Yale Law School. There she served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.[39] During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center,[4 learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).[41][42] She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale–New Haven Hospital[41] and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free legal advice for the poor.[4 In the summer of 1970 she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. There she researched migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.[43] Edelman later became a significant mentor.[44] Rodham was recruited by political advisor Anne Wexler to work on the 1970 campaign of Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Joseph Duffey, with Rodham later crediting Wexler with providing her first job in politics.[45]

In the late spring of 1971 she began dating Bill Clinton, also a law student at Yale. That summer she interned at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.[46] The firm was well known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes (two of its four partners were current or former Communist Party members);[46] Rodham worked on child custody and other cases.[nb 3] Clinton canceled his original summer plans in order to live with her in California;[5 the couple continued living together in New Haven when they returned to law school.[47] The following summer, Rodham and Clinton campaigned in Texas for unsuccessful 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern.[51] She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973,[32] having stayed on an extra year to be with Clinton.[52] He first proposed marriage to her following graduation but she declined, uncertain if she wanted to tie her future to his.[52]

Rodham began a year of postgraduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[53] Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973.[54] Discussing the new children's rights movement, it stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals"[55] and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but that instead courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis.[56] The article became frequently cited in the field.[57]


From the East Coast to Arkansas
During her postgraduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts,[58] and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.[59] In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[6 Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard W. Nussbaum,[41] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[6 The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.[6

By then, Rodham was viewed as someone with a bright political future: Democratic political organizer and consultant Betsey Wright had moved from Texas to Washington the previous year to help guide her career,[61] and Wright thought Rodham had the potential to become a future senator or president.[62] Meanwhile, Clinton had repeatedly asked Rodham to marry him and she continued to demur.[63] After failing the District of Columbia bar exam[64] and passing the Arkansas exam, Rodham came to a key decision. As she later wrote, "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head".[65] She thus followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington, where career prospects were brighter. He was then teaching law and running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in his home state. In August 1974, Rodham moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of only two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.[66][67]

Early Arkansas years
At the university, Rodham gave classes in criminal law, where she was considered a rigorous teacher and tough grader.[68] She became the first director of a new legal aid clinic at the school, securing support from the local bar association and gaining federal funding.[69] Among her cases was one where she was obliged by request of the court to serve as defense counsel to a man accused of raping a twelve-year-old girl; she put on an effective defense that led to his pleading guilty to a much lesser charge.[7 (Decades later, the woman involved said that the defense counsel had put her "through hell" during the legal process; Hillary has said it was a "terrible case").[7 During her time in Fayetteville, Rodham and several other women founded the city's first rape crisis center.[69] Rodham still harbored doubts about marriage, concerned that her separate identity would be lost and that her accomplishments would be viewed in the light of someone else's.[71]

Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton bought a house in Fayetteville in the summer of 1975, and Hillary finally agreed to marry Bill.[72] Their wedding took place on October 11, 1975, in a Methodist ceremony in their living room.[73] A story about the marriage in the Arkansas Gazette indicated that she was retaining the name Hillary Rodham.[73][74] The motivation was to keep the couple's professional lives separate and avoid apparent conflicts of interest and because, as she told a friend at the time, "it showed that I was still me."[75] The decision did upset both their mothers.[76] Bill Clinton had lost the congressional race in 1974, but in November 1976 was elected Arkansas Attorney General, and so the couple moved to the state capital of Little Rock.[77] There, in February 1977, Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence.[78] She specialized in patent infringement and intellectual property law[39] while also working pro bono in child advocacy;[79] she rarely performed litigation work in court.[8

Rodham maintained her interest in children's law and family policy, publishing the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977[81] and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979.[82] The latter continued her argument that children's legal competence depended upon their age and other circumstances and that in serious medical rights cases, judicial intervention was sometimes warranted.[56] An American Bar Association chair later said, "Her articles were important, not because they were radically new but because they helped formulate something that had been inchoate."[56] Historian Garry Wills would later describe her as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades",[83] while conservatives said her theories would usurp traditional parental authority,[84] would allow children to file frivolous lawsuits against their parents,[56] and exemplified legal "crit" theory run amok.[85]

Small, one-story brick-faced house with small yard in front
Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton lived in this 980-square-foot (91 m2) house in the Hillcrest neighborhood of Little Rock from 1977 to 1979 while he was Arkansas Attorney General.[86]
In 1977, Rodham cofounded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund.[39][87] Later that year, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had been the 1976 campaign director of field operations in Indiana)[88] appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation,[89] and she served in that capacity from 1978 until the end of 1981.[9 From mid-1978 to mid-1980,[nb 4] she was the chair of that board, the first woman to do so.[91] During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million; subsequently she successfully fought President Ronald Reagan's attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.[79]

Following her husband's November 1978 election as Governor of Arkansas, Rodham became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for twelve years (1979–81, 1983–92). Clinton appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year,[92] where she secured federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas's poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.[93]

In 1979, Rodham became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm.[94] From 1978 until they entered the White House, she had a higher salary than that of her husband.[95] During 1978 and 1979, while looking to supplement their income, Rodham engaged in the trading of cattle futures contracts;[96] an initial $1,000 investment generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months.[97] The couple also began their ill-fated investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation real estate venture with Jim and Susan McDougal at this time.[96] Both of these became subjects of controversy in the 1990s.

On February 27, 1980, Rodham gave birth to their daughter Chelsea. In November 1980, Bill Clinton was defeated in his bid for re-election.[98]

Matter of fact, one of the biggest mistake in her life might of been marrying Bill Clinton. Because it looked like she was going to become a star in the Democratic Party regardless.

I can she why Hillary say playing the sexism card, because you'll keep acting like she would be nothing without Bill. That is BS

 

[RIP sleazyy]

I wonder how many jobs Donald has created in the US. And what kind. Like are we talking manufacturing and service industry jobs?

How many of the jobs are even relevant anymore? Some of that stuff has to be automated at this point.

Wouldn't Trumps trade and job plans actually greatly increase the cost of goods being made here? And I could see the countries he's bringing jobs back from not wanting to accept our overpriced exports.

I can't make sense of this.

 

[rico x hood]

She and Obama have been saying for months they will go along with the FBI recommendation. She was just reiterating it.

Calm down baby girl

Spinning Rusty, if she weren't caught colluding her statement would never happened.

Here's an excerpt from the politico article

While I don’t have a role in those findings, in coming up with those findings or making those recommendations as to how to go forward, I will be briefed on it and I will be accepting their recommendations,” she continued.

Lynch’s decision comes days after an impromptu meeting with former President Bill Clinton aboard a private plane on a Phoenix airport tarmac, rekindling concerns that the investigation into the presumptive Democratic nominee could be compromised by political influence or at the very least present undesirable appearances.

 

[ninjahood]

all them sentences, and yet Hillary is where's at cuz of slick willie... period.

rode them coat tails for decades expecting a coronation to da Presidency

Hillary a loser without her husband, straight facts.

but like i said before, until da conventions pass, this is all hot air & partisan bloviating.

ya betta hope da FBI dont hang her..da Attorney General aint gonna save her since she effed up pow wowing wit slick willie on that Jet

This is straight nonsense. She was a success before Bill got on the National stage, and has been successful after his presidency.

so being kicked off an nixon investigation
is "success"?

da broad hasn't created a single job in her whole life, and her whole career trajectory of success was solely predicated on da exploits of Bill Clinton, and now her dumbass husband just got caught cooking da books wit da Attorney general on a plane in a private meeting.

I don't get the job creation jab. What is the relevance?

Ninja believes is supply side economics. Which is based on the assumption that rich people and large corporation "create jobs", so if they are given tax cuts, face lower regulations, get other benefits and are allowed to make as much money as easier as possible then they will share that wealth with the lower classes by creating jobs, so economic prosperity will "trickle down". It was a very popular theory during the 1980s and early 1990s, and conservatives still use it as an economic argument. Even though it has fallen out of favor with many economist

The alternative is believing in "demand side" policies. Basically that jobs are not created by the rich but by a large consumer base (a strong middle class) wanting (and willing to spend) of a product or service. In this case all tax credits, government programs, and other benefits would go to the lower and middle classes. They will demand more goods and services, and companies will then try to meet that demand by hiring more people to produce more good and provide both services.

Basically Ninja's shot at me and Hillary is that it doesn't matter how nonsensical Trump's economic plans sound on paper, he create jobs (Ninja believes in the supply side theory) so he strictly based on that act is better that Hillary in economics.

Most economist, liberal or conservative, classical or Keynesian, disagree with Ninja on this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-cut-them-guess-which-one-is-in-recession/

In 2012, voters in California approved a measure to raise taxes on millionaires, bringing their top state income tax rate to 13.3 percent, the highest in the nation. Conservative economists predicted calamity, or at least a big slowdown in growth. Also that year, the governor of Kansas signed a series of changes to the state's tax code, including reducing income and sales tax rates. Conservative economists predicted a boom.

Neither of those predictions came true. Not right away -- California grew just fine in the year the tax hikes took effect -- and especially not in the medium term, as new economic data showed this week.

Now, correlation does not, as they say, equal causation, and two examples are but a small sample. But the divergent experiences of California and Kansas run counter to a popular view, particularly among conservative economists, that tax cuts tend to supercharge growth and tax increases chill it.

California's economy grew by 4.1 percent in 2015, according to new numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, tying it with Oregon for the fastest state growth of the year. That was up from 3.1 percent growth for the Golden State in 2014, which was near the top of the national pack.

The Kansas economy, on the other hand, grew 0.2 percent in 2015. That's down from 1.2 percent in 2014, and below neighboring states such as Nebraska (2.1 percent) and Missouri (1.2 percent). Kansas ended the year with two consecutive quarters of negative growth -- a shrinking economy. By a common definition of the term, the state entered 2016 in recession.

California to Kansas try that nonsense on TX or FL..you know, where ppl from California are leaving to.

 

[ninjahood]

She and Obama have been saying for months they will go along with the FBI recommendation. She was just reiterating it.

Calm down baby girl

Spinning Rusty, if she weren't caught colluding her statement would never happened.

Here's an excerpt from the politico article

While I don’t have a role in those findings, in coming up with those findings or making those recommendations as to how to go forward, I will be briefed on it and I will be accepting their recommendations,” she continued.

Lynch’s decision comes days after an impromptu meeting with former President Bill Clinton aboard a private plane on a Phoenix airport tarmac, rekindling concerns that the investigation into the presumptive Democratic nominee could be compromised by political influence or at the very least present undesirable appearances.

and had that meeting not been blown by a tipster at da airport they wouldn't of reported it.

 

[ninjahood]

Before she reached you age she was a IVY law school graduate, worked on one of the highest profile legal investigations in American history, a college professor, first director of the legal clinic at the university she was teaching at.

and? Hillary Clinton isnt a job creater. Trump employees tens of thousands of people.

when has Hillary Clinton ever had a job that created jobs for others on a mass scale that Donald has?

 

[gry60]

Before she reached you age she was a IVY law school graduate, worked on one of the highest profile legal investigations in American history, a college professor, first director of the legal clinic at the university she was teaching at.

and? Hillary Clinton isnt a job creater. Trump employees tens of thousands of people.

when has Hillary Clinton ever had a job that created jobs for others on a mass scale that Donald has?

This is such an idiotic retort.

You do realize that generally, government investments in things like defense, infrastructure, agriculture, health create a need for construction workers, engineers, human resource people, field workers etc..., don't you?

Every politician that is in a position of authority within a government has the potential to create jobs, and many do.

The idea that only business people create jobs defies logic. Then again, you don't seem to exercise any.

BTW, regarding the WAPO article on taxes and economic growth, the goal wasn't to say that ANYTIME taxes are raised, growth will ensue; it was to disprove your religious-like belief in trickle down economics.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Before she reached you age she was a IVY law school graduate, worked on one of the highest profile legal investigations in American history, a college professor, first director of the legal clinic at the university she was teaching at.

and? Hillary Clinton isnt a job creater. Trump employees tens of thousands of people.

when has Hillary Clinton ever had a job that created jobs for others on a mass scale that Donald has?

I show you to be a liar, and misinformed once again, but you ignore all that to focus on this one supply side point

Plenty of times I have explained why this argument is BS and a deflection. Yes Trump is a business owner, but he didn't create jobs, he hired people. Demand in the economy created jobs, and he met that demand.

That doesn't make him better at economics that Hillary, it makes him better at running luxury resorts and beauty contest. But given the amount of time he went to bankruptcy court, that point is debatable too.

 

[aepps20]

Da jobs are in d mob deep B

 

[Master Zik]

When it comes to exposing more of Donald's lies, shady business practices, and corruption that's less for his supporters and more for ppl who are undecided and on the fence.

His supporters alone won't win him this election. He has to rely on fooling much more ppl by lying, sensationalizing events and forturnate world events he can take advantage of.
Frank Underwood > Bozo the Clown.

That's what it says about me
He doesn't want to answer conclusively just in case he has to flip flop down the line.

Typical worm tactics.

Originally Posted by Master Zik View Post

I just hope the UK fails at a quicker pace before the election over here.

Give Americans a good idea of what taking your country back and making it great again looks like.

A market crash over there in October would be great.

So not only are you a despicable human being for wish such turmoil on people, you're also a raging hypocrite. Trump does not wish for bad things to happen, as you do. But when they do, he's well in his right to say "I told you so".

Just like Obama politicizing guns everytime a shooting occurs.

The ppl voted for it. I'm not despicable for wanting what they voted for to happen at a quicker pace.

After they fail, hopefully they'll learn from their mistakes but by then Scotland probably gone from the UK too. The UKIP and every supporter and ignorant voter screwed the UK. UKIP incompetence succeeding in the UK can only be an example of what not to do to the rest of the free world.

You do know by end of this when they get out of this quagmire they'll end up making deals that keeps the majority of things they were doing when they were in the EU trade wise only less in their favor and the free flow of immigration will continue. Wake up b.

Don't be dense in an effort to name call.

Also how are you comparing Brexit and the impending clustering of an economy for Britain to Donald taking credit for thinking he's right about mass shootings? Are you saying cuz the ppl in that club didn't have guns or cuz refugees and immigration isn't banned they were asking for it the same way ppl who voted to leave the EU got what they wanted? How far will this piss poor comparison go? Let me know.

Think about what your saying in this comparison before you reply to me again. I hope it's well thought out next time.

I don't know you well enough to say your better than that but miss me with your reaching to call me a hypocrite.

Stupid ppl need to see the consequences of stupid bad decisions and if other stupid ppl in another country can learn from that then it's one of the few good things that can come out of a bad situation.

Frank Underwood > Bozo the Clown.

Claire was doing dirt all the time to help Frank cuz it helped both of them in the long run.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch described her Monday meeting with Bill Clinton aboard a private plane as “primarily social,” but some Democrats are struggling to stomach the optics of the attorney general’s meeting with the former president while his wife is under federal investigation

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-224972

And?

Do you know who the Underwoods are ninja? Perhaps the fictional character reference is going over your head

 

[deleted]

i think deep down inside, he does not think a woman would make a good president.


I'm just being real.

i mean, there are people who think this. Maybe its some cultural thing, i dunno..... i know the dominican republic has never had a woman president.


but i think, even if a tiny bit, it has something to do with it.

lol

I agree. I've been wondering about it since you started to ask him that question.

And I'm willing to bet that it's more than a tiny bit.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

Before she reached you age she was a IVY law school graduate, worked on one of the highest profile legal investigations in American history, a college professor, first director of the legal clinic at the university she was teaching at.

and? Hillary Clinton isnt a job creater. Trump employees tens of thousands of people.

when has Hillary Clinton ever had a job that created jobs for others on a mass scale that Donald has?

I show you to be a liar, and misinformed once again, but you ignore all that to focus on this one supply side point

Plenty of times I have explained why this argument is BS and a deflection. Yes Trump is a business owner, but he didn't create jobs, he hired people. Demand in the economy created jobs, and he met that demand.

That doesn't make him better at economics that Hillary, it makes him better at running luxury resorts and beauty contest. But given the amount of time he went to bankruptcy court, that point is debatable too.

This kinda furthers the point that his plans would be detrimental.

Bringing back labor would theoretically increase cost of goods, and reduce the number of exports.

This would then reduce overall spending in the US, right? Given that consumerism is extremely important to keeping us afloat, that doesn't seem like a good plan.

Yall remember when the Simpsons said the Trump administration bankrupted America in the future?

 

[RustyShackleford]

I wonder how many jobs Donald has created in the US. And what kind. Like are we talking manufacturing and service industry jobs?

How many of the jobs are even relevant anymore? Some of that stuff has to be automated at this point.

Wouldn't Trumps trade and job plans actually greatly increase the cost of goods being made here? And I could see the countries he's bringing jobs back from not wanting to accept our overpriced exports.

I can't make sense of this.

-Yes the price of goods will increase, that is a given, it might even increase enough to offset any wage gains workers get.

-Without unions, these new manufacturing jobs won't be as great as the ones that existed decades ago. Companies might shift production to America, but most of the benefits will go to American businesses owner who manufacturer in America

-America has never manufactured more good than it manufactures right now, and plants are getting really automated. The thread will continue because capital is still much cheaper than labor.

-If we put tariffs on countries, they will clap back and tariff us, further hurting exports. Plus having a strong dollar hurts exports.

-The trade argument is really about having the goods consumed by Americans being made in America, more than becoming a exporting powerhouse like we once were. Matter of fact, they only way that happens is if manufacturing gets way more automated.

Having better trade deals is a good thing, Trump is partly right on this, but you would need further actions to offset the negatives that will come along with it, so that altogether we have a net economic positive. Unions, a job program, and other demand side policies.

Bernie Sanders and Trump were big on trade, but it is obvious Bernie had a better grip on the systematic way the economy works. Trump just thinks there will be no negative fallout from his actions. Which is economically dangerous

 

[RustyShackleford]

Before she reached you age she was a IVY law school graduate, worked on one of the highest profile legal investigations in American history, a college professor, first director of the legal clinic at the university she was teaching at.

and? Hillary Clinton isnt a job creater. Trump employees tens of thousands of people.

when has Hillary Clinton ever had a job that created jobs for others on a mass scale that Donald has?

I show you to be a liar, and misinformed once again, but you ignore all that to focus on this one supply side point

Plenty of times I have explained why this argument is BS and a deflection. Yes Trump is a business owner, but he didn't create jobs, he hired people. Demand in the economy created jobs, and he met that demand.

That doesn't make him better at economics that Hillary, it makes him better at running luxury resorts and beauty contest. But given the amount of time he went to bankruptcy court, that point is debatable too.

This kinda furthers the point that his plans would be detrimental.

Bringing back labor would theoretically increase cost of goods, and reduce the number of exports.

This would then reduce overall spending in the US, right? Given that consumerism is extremely important to keeping us afloat, that doesn't seem like a good plan.

Yall remember when the Simpsons said the Trump administration bankrupted America in the future?

-Labor is not coming roaring back, plus some manufacturing have coming back because America has such cheaper energy. This article gives some insight into why LINK

-America consumer a lot of foreign manufactured goods, the point of this trade argument, even coming from the left is that if we can replace that domestically produced goods, you will see some benefit there.

-There will be price increases, but if you can make wages rise more, than there will not be a decrease in relative spending, which is another positive.

-The thing is that while Trump pedals trade and manufacturing (wrapped hate for the Chinese and Mexico) as some cure for the economy.

Many progressives know that it is just one area to put in place demand side policies. You still need other policies to get to a net positive, and you still need to subsidize whatever new losers (workers) in the economy.

I'm very liberal, and even I agree that our trade deals are ****. But I don't trust Trump to fix them, no one should trust Trump to fix them.

 

[whywesteppin]

makes me sick to read this. i am not going to forget what Drumpf has done. if you're going to defend him, fine. but don't play stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html

and a video too: http://nyti.ms/1pkUau8

i read every word. if you're going to respond, i ask you do the same.

now let me float my own conspiracy idea: how do we know Trump's mom wasn't seduced by an orangutan? can we see the birth certificate to be sure?

 

[throwbacks]

Can't believe America is really tryna push the 1st female president so soon tho ...

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Can't believe America is really tryna push the 1st female president so soon tho ...

So soon? I'm more inclined to believe that it's taken too long for us to stop electing only white males in office.

I've had conversations with my mother of all people, and she's expressed that she doesn't think a woman would be able to handle that position. I strongly disagree, but there really are people who feel that way based solely on her gender.

With that said, I'm not a huge fan of Hillary. I don't think I'm qualified to question her qualifications, though. I think she has adequate experience and she'd be more prepared to take things on than Trump, personally.

 

[law3001]

Can't believe America is really tryna push the 1st female president so soon tho ...

There has been male presidents for the last 250 years when the hell is the right time?

 

[whywesteppin]

da Donald in trouble. no one wants to speak at his convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/politics/donald-trump-convention-children-speakers/index.html

"It's gonna be a great combination of our great politicians, but also great American businessmen and women and leaders across industry and leaders across really all the sectors, from athletes to coaches and everything in between."

Everything in between? Equipment managers and athletic trainers too?

*excuse me. I meant to say "Great equipment managers and great athletic trainers too?"

The "winners' night" Trump has promised would be jam-packed with sports figures supportive of his candidacy, and he has floated such big names as New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, UFC President Dana White and NASCAR CEO Brian France.

He should invite Curry and Cam to join Brady on "winners" night.

As for business leaders, I hope he can book Elizabeth Holmes and Martin Shkreli.

If I were Brady, I would accept the invite but then spend the whole speech making fun of Donald and saying how terrible he is. You get booed out of the convention and you lose Trump's friendship but you gain the love and admiration of the two-thirds of Americans who also hate Donald.