Skip to main content

On the Republican conventions: and end every question with WHY  Reason I ask, as a conservative independent, I found it the convention, with the exception of Gingrich expecting shallow.

Those who signed the pledge not attended, not endorsing.  And WHY [see how this works.]

Those who signed the pledge not attending, sort of endorsing  [Rubio]

Those who signed the pledge attending, but not endorsing the ticket  -bush]

Those who signed the pledge, attending, and endorsing.

Demeaning those POWs as not being war heros

Having the support of veterans.

Demeaning female candidates who signed the pledge

Demeaning females wives of candidates having nothing to do with the pledge

Demeaning female reporters.

Thought this is over the dam, what republican candidate did more to contribute to Hillary's success.

What part will Independents play? If they vote, which party will benefit and why.

If they don't vote, who benefits?

There are more questions.  Ask WHY.  But here's a hit.  Though big $$ may be thrown at those candidates with special interest who will vote their agendas, most voters, like myself, will not be as informed on selective issues and will vote on generalities such as a candidates honesty.  Which one is best informed?  Most honest?

Lot of Republican comment having to do with those who serve our country - LEO, Military.  how do you view it?

 
Resizing any none vote is a vote for Clinton.

Last edited by budsfarm
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I'm not sure what you're wanting to resolve, but I have never met anyone in a leadership role or anyone who wanted to be in a leadership role who didn't have a strong type A (Probably the first letter of "A-nus"!) personality. Such people often are a bit moody, vainglorious, and childish and often will not play nice with others of the same temperament.

Right now the choice is between electing an extremely corrupt she-demon and a very flawed egomaniac with no other options. Voting for anyone else means the most flawed person wins; too many people have sold their souls for monthly goobermint freebies. 

interesting questions, however I thought several were from the campaign not the convention. Trump is liked by so many for speaking his mind, not sounding like a DC politician. Which means like the rest of us he will misspeak, be quoted wrong. and misinterpreted. I like Johnston best of all and hope he gets enough support to make the debates. I do believe Clinton is evil, am having a hard time trusting Trump. However I like that Trump has business experience and is a life time politician. With his business experience I believe he will pick better people to surround him. I see the Clinton machine much like the mafia, to big, to dangerous. There are to many questions of illegal or unethical surrounding the Clintons.

Who calls it government welfare? Oh, the ones upset that people that never paid a dime get it handed to them? That government hand out program that you demoslops love? Tell me jt, how is it TWO women can collect from one man and that isn't government welfare? One man could not have possibly paid in enough for two women to draw off of it.

Last edited by Bestworking
Too many people don't realize how anti America they can be
with a hellery vote. The repercussions of mobuma will take
years to correct if given a chance. The stupid people know this
and will vote her anyway. The ignorant ones will vote the same
way without a clue as to why. If I could, the minimum age would
be 21 except for the military. Must be land/homeowners or at
least a 3 year permanent resident and be an American citizen
for 3 years. It would be necessary to sign a contract with the FBI
to obey the U.S. Constitution and only the laws of America.
Anything short of this is treason.
 
 
Jack Flash posted:
Too many people don't realize how anti America they can be
with a hellery vote. The repercussions of mobuma will take
years to correct if given a chance. The stupid people know this
and will vote her anyway. The ignorant ones will vote the same
way without a clue as to why. If I could, the minimum age would
be 21 except for the military. Must be land/homeowners or at
least a 3 year permanent resident and be an American citizen
for 3 years. It would be necessary to sign a contract with the FBI
to obey the U.S. Constitution and only the laws of America.
Anything short of this is treason.
 
 

They don't care how anti-American it is, they want their free stuff that the demoslops are going to take from you and give to them.

jtdavis posted:
The repercussions of mobuma will take
years to correct if given a chance.
Jack, it only took Bush one year to turn Clintons surplus into a deficite. I believe Trump would be just as quick as Bush to ruin the economic gains realized under Obama.
There hasn't been one (1) dollar gained with moSamabumer,
those debit/credit cheat sheets really aren't your thing are they.?
 
jtdavis posted:
The repercussions of mobuma will take
years to correct if given a chance.
Jack, it only took Bush one year to turn Clintons surplus into a deficite. I believe Trump would be just as quick as Bush to ruin the economic gains realized under Obama.

JT, back in February we had this same conversation.  Is your short term memory failing?  I've seen this in a number of older people (ain't no youngster, myself). 

I posted the information once more in Best's current thread.  Suggest you review.

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/t...4#515140236204348144

direstraits posted:
jtdavis posted:
The repercussions of mobuma will take
years to correct if given a chance.
Jack, it only took Bush one year to turn Clintons surplus into a deficite. I believe Trump would be just as quick as Bush to ruin the economic gains realized under Obama.

JT, back in February we had this same conversation.  Is your short term memory failing?  I've seen this in a number of older people (ain't no youngster, myself). 

I posted the information once more in Best's current thread.  Suggest you review.

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/t...4#515140236204348144

As Gifted pointed out, clinton himself said there was no surplus. He had to, all the facts were there that there was no surplus, and at the time he admitted there was no surplus, he actually had to. If he kept repeating the lie it would have stirred up a hornet's nest. The truth would have come out that the GOP, not clinton, was responsible for the good economy in spite of clinton fighting against it. Now, I don't know if hilliary has mentioned a surplus and made that claim, but I wouldn't doubt she has or will, and the Clintons and demoslops being such liars, they could dust off that old lie. The demoslops know that lies mean nothing to their voter base. The bigger the lie, the more they repeat it, and there are always gullible demoslops that believe anything they are handed by them.

jtdavis posted:

I looked at some sites that listed budget deficits and surpluses. I only looked at the first 4. Dave Manuel,  US Gov info, white house. gov/omb/budget/ historicals, and federal -budget. inside gov. com. Everyone of them had budget surpluses for Clinton. I think I'll take their word instead of your guys.

Our word? They aren't our words. You will take his word over Clinton's? You really drank the Koolaid

Jt, you just might be the only demoslop left that is still spouting the lie about there being a surplus. Oh well, whatever floats your boat. As posted, clinton had to admit it wasn't true, you however are still free to spread the lie.

In reality, there were no federal government surpluses. The lion’s share of the prosperity was a Federal Reserve-created bubble (the dot com bubble) and what real economic growth there was occurred despite Clinton’s policies, not because of them.

It might be necessary to go back and read that last sentence again. It is heresy, as surely as Galileo’s heliocentrism was to the Inquisition. It’s also just as true.

First, the so-called “surpluses” were bogus. As Craig Steiner explains, the appearance of a surplus was merely increased tax revenues from the dot com bubble allowing the Clinton administration to borrow more money from Social Security. While the public debt went down in the last four years of the Clinton presidency, the intergovernmental debt (mostly to Social Security) went up by an even greater amount, resulting in an increase in the national debt in each of those years. These are easily verifiable facts out of the published federal government budgets for those years. Anyone who doubts this can simply look up the budgets from 1997- 2001 and see the deficits for themselves.

Repeat:

 "the appearance of a surplus was merely increased tax revenues from the dot com bubble allowing the Clinton administration to borrow more money from Social Security. While the public debt went down in the last four years of the Clinton presidency, the intergovernmental debt (mostly to Social Security) went up by an even greater amount, resulting in an increase in the national debt in each of those years"

 

Last edited by Bestworking
jtdavis posted:

I looked at some sites that listed budget deficits and surpluses. I only looked at the first 4. Dave Manuel,  US Gov info, white house. gov/omb/budget/ historicals, and federal -budget. inside gov. com. Everyone of them had budget surpluses for Clinton. I think I'll take their word instead of your guys.

I hope JT's wife keeps their checkbook. 

JT, my source is whitehouse.gov, for the annual budgets and national debt. Please feel free to call Obama a liar. many others do, as well.  You are either incapable of understanding simple accounting, or are so deep in the weeds for the Clintons, you refuse to accept facts.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×