hey Deucesjak. ej is just trolling the thread.....
Become a Patron!
To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?
- Thread starter SMOKIE
- Start date
- Status
Bush didn't enforce the border
Non of the past presidents enforce border
VAPE ON
You are right about that....... Of course neither Georges were really the choice of the American people. They were the coices the people were given.
Difference between the Bushes or Clintons and Trump.. The PARTY chose one and the PEOPLE appear to be choosing the other.
The last time this happened was Reagan. The last candidate the PARTIES and Pundits hated, is considered by many to be the best President in the Century..... Maybe contrary to the wisdom of New York and Washington talking heads, we listen to the people rather than them.
One of the many reasons I refused to vote for Bush is his support to erase the borders and help create the NWO,but Obama is on a whole other level he is actively recruiting illegals, he is using every resource of the goverment to flood the country with illiterate, uneducated,hostile third worlders..Obama like Merkel in Germany is openly breaking the law on a massive scale, the global elite are on the brink of disaster, and if they can't destroy the Westeren republics,and bring them down to the third world cesspool level and fast they will be pulled down.The mask is off this isn't about immigration this is about invasion.Brexit was the start of the uprising and all across europe the nationalist parties are winning one election after the other.
Wow, talk about a straw man! Why are you coming to me to defend Hillary from whatever allegations you believe? I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm voting for Johnson.
I'm asking you to explain your assertion that Trump and Hilary are both as equally morally corrupt..which is what you have stated...also explain to me how that is a straw man argument.
"Not a stretch at all. Both are totally, and completely morally bankrupt. But I'm not here to debate politics. I gave my opinion."
that is the claim you made.I did not misrperesent your claim,so how is it a straw man fallacy.
Last edited:
It's funny to me that you say I said something I never said, then, you copy and paste the quote from me where I didn't say it. I was going to accuse you of not reading what I wrote, but since you copied it, I guess you did read it. You just didn't understand it.
A straw man argument is when you twist your opponents point by arguing assertions they never made. For Example, I say "Trump is Morally bankrupt" You build a straw man. Which is "Explain to me how Hillary Clinton isn't a rapist" I never said she was or wasn't, that's a straw man.
first off you are a simple liar...the quote was from a post YOU made it was a direct quote...secondly my assertion to you wasn't "explain to me how Hillary Clinton isn't a rapist" now that is another lie. my QUESTION was how is a bombastic real estate tycoon. as corrupt as a murderer rapist and war criminal......the problem you are having is trying to evade the question put to you...and your solution was to avoid answering the question by trying to preform some little sophist softshoe..just answer the fucking question...how is Trump as morally bankrupt as Hitlery...what you and the left are attempting to do is play the old moral relevancy game for the 1000th time..you can't defend voting for Hilary ..it's an indefenseable postion with a woman who has such a long and bloody and corrupt ,criminal and treasonous background and so like all leftist you see the futility in that approach...your solution is rather than try and sell Hitlery to the American people, you try and sell the lie that Trump is as evil as she is...in this way you try and give the evil a justification and the stupid a slogan in order to vote for Hitlery....that dog don't hunt.......please just answer the simple question.... how is Trump as morally bankrupt as Hitlery.
Do you really have to argue everything dude..
You got anger issues..
Straw man
VAPE ON
There are a number of examples of Trump being morally corrupt but the one that stands out to me is multiple bankruptcies. Fail at your business, leave the ones that loaned money to you holding the bag.
Then you take a few years off to give that BK some seasoning and you do it again.
All while you pocketed millions of dollars from the business that went bankrupt. Wouldn't it make sense that a moral person would have returned those profits to the debt holders to make the sting a little less painful?
Thing is with the number 1 global economy... you cant just file for bankruptcy and start over.
And I am not voting for Hitlery either
Then you take a few years off to give that BK some seasoning and you do it again.
All while you pocketed millions of dollars from the business that went bankrupt. Wouldn't it make sense that a moral person would have returned those profits to the debt holders to make the sting a little less painful?
Thing is with the number 1 global economy... you cant just file for bankruptcy and start over.
And I am not voting for Hitlery either
let me see if I can word this in a way you can understand ej...Do you really have to argue everything dude..
You got anger issues..
Straw man
VAPE ON
and how many families were blown to bits by him doing that? how many american soldiers were killed for that...how many guns did al queda get for him doing that......you see to me it's apples and oranges.If you can't see the diffrence by all means vote for the bitch it's your karma.
Last edited:
Here's a guy who's failed so miserably so many times and it's not as though he had to claw his way back after seven years in credit hell. He just said. 'OK, this isn't my problem anymore.' For him, it's just been a platform to the next money-making scheme," said Dough Heller, the executive director of Consumer Watchdog.
In 2004 Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts Inc. filed for voluntary bankruptcy after accumulating $1.8 billion in debt. The Donald agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 25 percent, meaning he no longer had control over the company. The deal also included lower interest rates and a $500 million loan to make improvements.
"In 2004 is where he lost control of his name. One rule when you have a name like Trump is you never let anyone own it and control it. He got into such a bad spot here that he ended up with others owning and controlling his name. They can do what they want once they own it," LoPucki said.
Shortly after the proceedings, Trump told CNN's Geri Willis that his personal fortune would not be affected. "This is a very small portion of my net worth. It's less than 2 percent," he said.
When the economy turned downward in 2008, so too did Trump's real estate holdings. Trump Entertainment and his affiliated companies had $2.06 billion in assets and was $1.74 billion in debt. In December 2008 his company missed a $53.1 million bond interest payment, propelling Trump Entertainment Resorts into bankruptcy court and plunging its stock price from $4 per share to a mere 23 cents.
This time, Trump fought with his board of directors over the restructuring and ended up resigning as chairman of the board. He emerged from a messy, months-long process with a 10 percent share of the company.
LoPucki said it was very unusual for anyone to have that many large businesses go through bankruptcy. Most of the debt Trump incurred was through bonds that were sold to the public.
"People knew who Donald Trump was and for that reason were willing to trust the bonds, and they got burned," LoPucki said. "The people who invested with him or based on his name lost money, but he himself came out pretty well."
VAPE ON
In 2004 Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts Inc. filed for voluntary bankruptcy after accumulating $1.8 billion in debt. The Donald agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 25 percent, meaning he no longer had control over the company. The deal also included lower interest rates and a $500 million loan to make improvements.
"In 2004 is where he lost control of his name. One rule when you have a name like Trump is you never let anyone own it and control it. He got into such a bad spot here that he ended up with others owning and controlling his name. They can do what they want once they own it," LoPucki said.
Shortly after the proceedings, Trump told CNN's Geri Willis that his personal fortune would not be affected. "This is a very small portion of my net worth. It's less than 2 percent," he said.
When the economy turned downward in 2008, so too did Trump's real estate holdings. Trump Entertainment and his affiliated companies had $2.06 billion in assets and was $1.74 billion in debt. In December 2008 his company missed a $53.1 million bond interest payment, propelling Trump Entertainment Resorts into bankruptcy court and plunging its stock price from $4 per share to a mere 23 cents.
This time, Trump fought with his board of directors over the restructuring and ended up resigning as chairman of the board. He emerged from a messy, months-long process with a 10 percent share of the company.
LoPucki said it was very unusual for anyone to have that many large businesses go through bankruptcy. Most of the debt Trump incurred was through bonds that were sold to the public.
"People knew who Donald Trump was and for that reason were willing to trust the bonds, and they got burned," LoPucki said. "The people who invested with him or based on his name lost money, but he himself came out pretty well."
VAPE ON
The New York Times, after investigating Donald Trump’s U.S. real estate holdings, reports that companies owned by the GOP presidential nominee rely on a wide network of financial backers and are indeed carrying at least $650 million in debt — double the amount made apparent in Trump’s campaign-related public filings. Noting that much of Trump’s business “remains shrouded in mystery” due to the complex nature of real estate projects, the report points out that the discrepancy between what Trump has reported and what their investigation found is not Trump’s fault, but rather due to the fact that the financial disclosure form the Federal Election Commission makes candidates fill out is not designed for people with finances as complicated or extensive as Trump’s, and federal law only asks for a list of personal liabilities, not corporate debt.
Regardless, the report points out that this complicated nature of Trump’s often opaque financial holdings makes it difficult to determine just how much his business interests, which he has said he will relinquish to his children if elected, would potentially influence, or be influenced by, Trump’s presidency. This is particularly worrisome when considering how, if elected, Trump would be able to control monetary and tax policy, and through appointments and legislative influence, undoubtedly be able to impact his family business’s net worth. Also, some of Trump’s corporate debt is owed to financial institutions like the Bank of China, and though Trump has repeatedly focused on China as an economic enemy of the U.S. during his presidential campaign, it’s unclear how official U.S. dealings with China under a Trump administration could influence his businesses’ interests and debt there.
Trump has recently referred to himself as the “king of debt” when describing his business prowess, though the real estate mogul has also sought to emphasize that he has less debt now than he has had in the past. (Over the course of his career, four of Trump’s businesses have declared bankruptcy.) Trump has also insisted that he is worth a total of $10 billion, but neither he nor his campaign have backed that number up with evidence, and major business magazines have estimated his worth as less than $5 billion. Trump’s full financial picture would of course be made much clearer if he released his tax returns, but he has so far refused to do so.
VAPE ON
Regardless, the report points out that this complicated nature of Trump’s often opaque financial holdings makes it difficult to determine just how much his business interests, which he has said he will relinquish to his children if elected, would potentially influence, or be influenced by, Trump’s presidency. This is particularly worrisome when considering how, if elected, Trump would be able to control monetary and tax policy, and through appointments and legislative influence, undoubtedly be able to impact his family business’s net worth. Also, some of Trump’s corporate debt is owed to financial institutions like the Bank of China, and though Trump has repeatedly focused on China as an economic enemy of the U.S. during his presidential campaign, it’s unclear how official U.S. dealings with China under a Trump administration could influence his businesses’ interests and debt there.
Trump has recently referred to himself as the “king of debt” when describing his business prowess, though the real estate mogul has also sought to emphasize that he has less debt now than he has had in the past. (Over the course of his career, four of Trump’s businesses have declared bankruptcy.) Trump has also insisted that he is worth a total of $10 billion, but neither he nor his campaign have backed that number up with evidence, and major business magazines have estimated his worth as less than $5 billion. Trump’s full financial picture would of course be made much clearer if he released his tax returns, but he has so far refused to do so.
VAPE ON
I guess if straw men don't work, and you're out of intelligent things to say, you can revert to personal attacks. You're looking for a fight where there isn't one.
Correct, the quote from me is a direct quote from me. I don't deny that. But what you said that I wrote isn't what I wrote. You proved that by quoting what I actually wrote. Which isn't what you claimed I wrote.
My mistake. You didn't ask me to explain how Hillary isn't a rapist. You demanded I explain how Trump is. Which is odd because I haven't asserted he is.
I'm not evading it. You're not asking a question. You're asking me to support a position I don't have and never claimed to have.
There you go again. You're not asking me a question. You're asking me to back up something you say I said, that I never said. I'm not evading your question. I'm evading ownership of an idea I never had that you desperately need me to have in order for you to advance your argument. You're not discussing so much as waiting until I type something so you can respond with the same response you were going to respond with regardless of what I wrote.
The left and I aren't doing anything. You think anyone who doesn't profess a deep love for Trump must be a granola crunching liberal hippie. I'm not that.
I'm not defending it. In fact, I do believe I said I wasn't voting for her. So, why would I defend voting for her? Is English not your first language? I'll admit I may be taking for granted that it is, since we're conducting a discussion about American politics, but if English is your second or third language, then your lack of reading comprehension is totally understandable.
It's funny. I could swear I called her morally bankrupt and said I didn't plan to vote for her. If that's me selling her to the American people, I'm a pretty terrible salesman.
It's not a simple question. It's a question that implies a belief you need me to have so you get to be right in your mind. I'm voting for neither of those people. I have no interest in debating which turd smells worse.
well at least you admitt you lied...but you still try and avoid the simple question.
"Not a stretch at all. Both are totally, and completely morally bankrupt. But I'm not here to debate politics. I gave my opinion.
Last edited:
sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Donald J. Trump is going to win in November. This wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full time sociopath is going to be our next president. President Trump. Go ahead and say the words, ‘cause you’ll be saying them for the next four years: “PRESIDENT TRUMP.”
VAPE ON
VAPE ON
Again with the lying. I can't tell if you really think I'm lying, or, if you just need me to be lying so you can claim some sort of victory. Or, you're just not smart enough to know that I'm not lying and why. Let me try it in a very easy way. Remember Highlights magazine? It was always in my doctors office growing up. On the back cover, there was always a "spot the differences" game. Lets play that game....
Up top in the quoted box, is what you say I wrote. The bottom is what I actually wrote. Look real hard, and see if you can spot the difference. Look hard, because your entire argument rests on it. If it helps, ask an adult to print it out and circle the difference with one of your crayons. Do you see how your question implies a statement I didn't make? Do you understand how my addressing your question would take ownership over something I never said?
Up top in the quoted box, is what you say I wrote. The bottom is what I actually wrote. Look real hard, and see if you can spot the difference. Look hard, because your entire argument rests on it. If it helps, ask an adult to print it out and circle the difference with one of your crayons. Do you see how your question implies a statement I didn't make? Do you understand how my addressing your question would take ownership over something I never said?
sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Donald J. Trump is going to win in November. This wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full time sociopath is going to be our next president. President Trump. Go ahead and say the words, ‘cause you’ll be saying them for the next four years: “PRESIDENT TRUMP.”
VAPE ON
I'll bet you a 30ml bottle of juice he doesn't win. ;-)
it's a real simple question you have created an entire word salad to evade and you still are..how is Trump as morally bankrupt as Hitlery?... simple go ahead....
Scary thought, you are correct. Problem is the only current option is worse.sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Donald J. Trump is going to win in November. This wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full time sociopath is going to be our next president. President Trump. Go ahead and say the words, ‘cause you’ll be saying them for the next four years: “PRESIDENT TRUMP.”
VAPE ON
The 2 party system sucks..... it means we have to vote for bad people because they are less bad than the alternative. The sad part is we RE-ELECT people and parties we know are bad.. because we fear the unknown.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
i fear the verifiable known....the defenition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting diffrent results....by that definition voting for Hitlery is insane.....the hag just doesn't put any value on human life.and I'm bone weary of wars. I mean a bunch of pirahna bussinessmen fucking each other over is revolting enoug,but it is a whole other level when you are sipping your coffee in some mudhut in Tripoli playing with your three year old daughter and the bombs start falling, or you're a young Christian woman in Ciaro being beaten and raped by a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood thugs....because of Hilary's Arab Spring.
Last edited:
That's true, and it's why I'm voting for Trump. I've never voted for an R or a D in a presidential election.
Trump has already done a number on the R party. He's destroyed the status quo. He's the only shot, right now, to destroy the two party system. The two parties that talk different but act the same. Do the same.
The parties cannot be broken from the outside. They must be broken from the inside. Never Trump is not a democrat mantra, it is a GOP elite mantra. The GOP elite are not attacking Johnson. Some are even saying they will vote for him. 1. He has no chance, thus he is no threat. 2. It will help get an insider get elected, Hitlery, who carry on as is. And/or 3. He is like the rest and will say one thing to get elected but do another.
Gary Johnson has no chance to change anything. He cannot change the status quo. There is nothing moral about voting for someone that can't do anything just as there is nothing moral about choosing a person that can't swim to rescue a drowning child on the grounds that of the two that can swim, one will say she can do it but you know she will refuse, and the other one is not popular because he's a loud mouth and you don't like him.
Gary Johnson can't swim.
Hitlery can swim but she won't, as she has shown repeatedly.
Trump can swim. He's a bit of a dick but he's the only one that can save the child. There is no way to know if he will but I know the other two cannot or will not.
Trump is the moral choice.
Evasion would imply I'm using trickery to avoid the question. I'm straight up, outright, to your face, refusing to answer. That's not evasion. Evasion would be when I explain, simply, that your question implies a statement I never made. Then I prove I never made said statment. Then even try to illustrate to you in terms an 8 year old could understand, that I never said what you're implying, and you keep right on insisting I own this statement. That's evasion. You're evading the fact that I never said what you're implying.
ooohh mayonsisse on this word salad.......I'm not implying trickery I'm implying cowardice....
Last edited:
No.
911,086 Bankruptcies in 2015 alone. Are they all morally corrupt?
You can file for bankruptcy and start over. Most people do. It's how debt works.
Lending is a risky business. That's why there is interest. So is doing work on a promise to pay.
This is a very simple concept and it's been around a very long time. It's a really stupid argument. Lenders make decisions, and then risk their money for the chance at profit. Sometimes(more often than not) they make money. Sometimes they lose money.
Last edited:
Hillary wins … she has said, Tim Kaine has said, amnesty for all illegal immigrants," Coulter said. "We know that's 30, 40 million. She's going to throw open the southern border. She's going to more than quadruple the number of Muslim refugees we bring in.. Can we call these folks future democrats?
VAPE ON
VAPE ON
It's not a straw man. You've been on the internet too long.
You did say what pulse said you did.
You said both were morally bankrupt. You were simply asked to explain. To avoid explaining, you've made false claims of "straw man". That's the short of it. The long of it is that you've used allot of words and misdirection to not answer.
I get what you're saying, I just can't see casting my vote on someone I don't truly see as fit for the job. Gary Johnson is the candidate that most closely reflects my political beliefs. The beliefs I believe will help the country. I firmly believe democracy only work when you vote your mind. Not vote for the one you want to win. (That my personal belief, not a pontification)
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Correct, I said they were both morally corrupt. I've not denied saying that. I've even re-printed it. I've quoted myself. And quoted someone else who quoted me. That's 2nd generation quoting. I'm not stepping back from what I said. I admit it, own it and believe it. The implication with the question is, again, that I feel one is better or worse than the other. Or that I'm trying to debate which is worse.
You guys are trying to reduce this to a Trump vs. Clinton discussion that I have no interest in taking part in. I'm voting for neither. They are both morally bankrupt. I have no way of answering which is better or worse morally. I don't have a meter or some sort of gauge. They're both the same to me, as in, people i'm not voting for. I have no interest in discussing the merits of one vs. the other, which is where you guys are determined to take the discussion.
I don't like tea. I also don't like lemonade. I have no interest or ability to argue that one is better or worse. To me, they're the same, things I don't drink. Ask me how Tea is just as bad as Lemonade? I dunno, I don't want to drink either.
I'm not avoiding the question. I don't have an answer for it.
I agree, Clinton is also morally corrupt. That's why I'm not voting for her either.
Nice pictures, how long did it take you to draw those? JK
That reminds me of a friend that liked to paint and decided to pay for a booth at a local art show. He wasn't getting much interest and half way through the day a nice lady and her young son were looking at a couple of his better beach/wave scenes (all he did).
She asked him how old his kid was that painted them. He packed up shortly after
. True story
It's a stretch but thats like saying that there are 911,086 murders a year so if everyone else is doing it, it must be ok for someone we would want as president to do.
No, the guy that takes ten mill from a business over a few years as salary and leaves private and or public lenders holding the bag is not someone I want for president.
That's just me though, you vote for who you want.
I agree with this in it's entirety. I do the same.
I think long term. Trump is not ideal for me in the short term but my ideal candidate will never happen in the two party system. The third party has no chance. Or the fourth/fifth party.
I need the parties to implode. I need outsiders to have a chance.
I voted for Gary last cycle. Romney was an insider. One of the elite. I had nothing to gain. No matter who I voted for, I was not going to break the system. Gary was on the ballot.
This time isn't like last time. The two party system is at risk. Voting for Gary will not help my long term goals. Voting for Trump might. It might not. But, it's a start and we gotta start somewhere. Gary has failed in several prior attempts and he will fail again. His policies suck for today's problems.
Trump is who I want today because it may give me a chance to have who I want tomorrow. Gary cannot give me who I want tomorrow. He has no chance of influencing anything. You gain nothing. I gain a chance to remove the elite from power. A long term goal.
Last edited:
LOL. I hold no sympathy for rich lenders. They knew what they were getting into. If you want to stick up for those that gamble for profit and lost, be my guest.
Ah, but there is a problem. You do realize that much of the population considers Gary morally bankrupt? I mean, the guy is CEO of a sticky icky company, which is against Federal law. While one could debate the moral implications, owning an illegal business(enforced or not) is certainly ethically bankrupt.
So, using a blanket statement without clarification and without comparison is obtuse. We compare for context. I have no idea what you consider morally bankrupt as I believe the same can be said for exactly everybody. I'd be surprised to learn you have been entirely moral your entire life. I certainly have not. The difference is the degree and the context.
Last edited:
I'm not sympathetic to lenders, that's the business they are in. But I still don't think they shouldn't be paid back.
I just think that people should make good on their debts. Just because you can BK doesn't mean you should. I don't see that as being moral.
So, everyone that files BK is immoral. Gotcha.
When the landowner sold sold the commercial building my grandmother leased for her restaurant out from under her and she had to file BK, she was immoral.
All the people caught in the subprime housing crash and had to file BK are immoral.
Business is business is business. Whether you are rich or poor, the rules are the same. If your business fails, you file BK. Unless you're fucking stupid.
Sorry to hear about grandma, she should have planned better though. Savings would have allowed her to move her restaurant equipment and start somewhere else. I don't say that to be mean but not spending every penny of income would have helped her avoid that BK.
Subprime loans were made to people that shouldn't have been borrowing in the first place. If they could afford the loan payment when the value was higher than the loan balance then they should have still been able to afford the payment regardless of value. They had to file BK because their home value dropped? I don't see how someones business income is affected by home value. If they lost their job or if their business income was drastically affected by the recession, that's a different story but their home loan has nothing to do with them filing for bankruptcy.
I have the feeling you have filed for BK in the past and I'm sorry I struck a nerve but again, it is my opinion that people should pay their debt... especially someone that wants to run the worlds largest economy.
Subprime loans were made to people that shouldn't have been borrowing in the first place. If they could afford the loan payment when the value was higher than the loan balance then they should have still been able to afford the payment regardless of value. They had to file BK because their home value dropped? I don't see how someones business income is affected by home value. If they lost their job or if their business income was drastically affected by the recession, that's a different story but their home loan has nothing to do with them filing for bankruptcy.
I have the feeling you have filed for BK in the past and I'm sorry I struck a nerve but again, it is my opinion that people should pay their debt... especially someone that wants to run the worlds largest economy.
- Status