Trump Campaign Fumbles Plea For Washington State Delegates

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You didn't seem to really examine it closely, and I'm somewhat sad about that. I'd thought you would understand.

All children with blonde and hair blue eyes cannot be tackled. No one can tackle them, including other children with blonde hair and blue eyes. The rule applies to everyone. It binds everyone. Thus, it is equal. The contents of the rule are mostly irrelevant. It is equal, and hence by your condition fair.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Please don't keep espousing this junk. The $18 trillion plan scare was debunked in 2015.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Please don't keep espousing this junk. The $18 trillion plan scare was debunked in 2015.

I'll espouse whatever my opinion is. Bernie's got an $18 trillion spending plan and it is by far the largest spending plan of all the candidates.

All that spending will go to government contracts that benefit the wealthy, elite, big business, corporations, etc...

He also has the biggest tax hike. Makes no difference to me if the wealthy will be hardest hit by it -- they'll make that money up through government contracts. His tax hike just means government will get bigger and have more power.

I think the Establishment would very much like that.

And I am entitled to my opinion and will share if I want to. I am not going to be silenced by anyone supporting the two party system. You guys do enough of that to independent voters. Eff that.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What do you mean "you guys". I think the two party system is ridiculous, it's one of the stupidest things about the country and that is quite the achievement. Sanders, despite technically running as one, is barely a democrat. I consider him an independent who works with them because he has no choice.

Yes, it may be your opinion and you are entitled to that. Just as I am entitled to ask you to stop being misleading and disingenuous. You can keep doing it if you like, I can't stop you.

If you want to drastically reduce the power of government within your life time, start a civil war. That's the only way it's going to happen. Or get Ron Paul elected, perhaps find a Genie to grant you a wish as well.

Actually, I apologise for saying disingenuous. That implies you are doing so on purpose. But I ask you to properly research Sander's spending proposals in comparison to the other candidates.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I'll espouse whatever my opinion is. Bernie's got an $18 trillion spending plan and it is by far the largest spending plan of all the candidates.

18 trillion over 10 years, the CBO rates things on 10 year intervals. By that token Trumps spending plan is $20 trillion. The difference between them is that Bernie has ways to raise the revenue while Trump wants to cut revenue.

a reply to: Aazadan

Trump wants to cut wasteful spending, and increase revenue by getting money owed to us from foreign countries.
His plans to improve the economy will result in more taxes being paid through prosperity, not through tax increases.
His plans will make the country economically stronger through rational fixes.

Bernie's plan will increase taxes for the working people so that others get stuff for free.
Nothing is free.
I paid for my own college, helped with my kids college, they are still paying their own way on loans. I have no intention of voting for someone who now wants me to pay for other people I don't even know to go to college.

I would rather vote for someone who will give us the ability to support ourselves than to someone who says they will give handouts. Handouts result in the government owning people, because people are totally dependent upon the government.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What do you mean "you guys". I think the two party system is ridiculous, it's one of the stupidest things about the country and that is quite the achievement. Sanders, despite technically running as one, is barely a democrat. I consider him an independent who works with them because he has no choice.

He's a democrat since 2015. As an 'unaffiliated' registered voter, I don't consider Sanders to be an independent. He's a democrat. He wants all the benefit of running as democrat and none of the stigma.

No. I will not give him that. I have been burned by the DNC too many times. Bernie cannot be trusted because he is running as a democrat. Trump cannot be trusted because he is running as a republican.

I am entitled to my opinion. These parties have a long history of conspiring together to screw voters. If you want me to go through that history, I am happy to.

From my perspective, the 'Establishment' has its money-making war machine in place with the War on Terror. They don't *need* a conservative warhawk. They can guide the War on Terror wherever they want to keep making money from it.

The Establishment is interested in another big domestic spending plan, in my opinion. Another democrat. A big spending, tax-hiking democrat.

There's nothing misleading about my opinion: Big Spending Plan + Big Tax Hike = The Establishment's Chosen One.

I don't care how these parties, campaigns, and media are marketing these candidates. I am looking at what I believe to be most logical.

Deal with it. I have a different opinion than yours but it is VALID and LOGICAL.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I'll espouse whatever my opinion is. Bernie's got an $18 trillion spending plan and it is by far the largest spending plan of all the candidates.

18 trillion over 10 years, the CBO rates things on 10 year intervals. By that token Trumps spending plan is $20 trillion. The difference between them is that Bernie has ways to raise the revenue while Trump wants to cut revenue.

Trump is so incoherent about his plan, I cannot take any of it seriously.

Bernie is coherent. I take Bernie very seriously.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Trump wants to cut wasteful spending, and increase revenue by getting money owed to us from foreign countries. His plans to improve the economy will result in more taxes being paid through prosperity, not through tax increases. His plans will make the country economically stronger through rational fixes.

Except that Trump doesnt HAVE a plan, he has rhetoric

There is a huge difference

Just like hes goign to make Mexico pay for a wall, his whole "plan" is laughable you cant force countries to do something they dont want to do, that is unless you want more war

a reply to: BlueAjah

Build a wall
Build Infrastructure
Double the size of the military
And others.

He's proposing paying for this with cutting the average tax rate from 23% to 12% claiming the increased economic activity will make up the difference. His plans are worth $8 trillion over a decade in increased revenue when being very generous, yet his first year budget is already $6 trillion and revenues will drop from 3.5 trillion to 2.4 trillion.

Trumps plan is like spending $100 to get a $10 rebate, and calling that rebate a savings.

The only way Trumps tax plan can work is if the economy grows at 8% per year when 2% is considered healthy and 3.3 is the average of the past 100 years (and a rate that brought on the 2008 collapse).

a reply to: CrazyWater

www.donaldjtrump.com...

sigh...
How many times we hear the same rhetoric from trump-haters, who are just repeating tweets and MSM propaganda.

a reply to: Aazadan

and this:
www.donaldjtrump.com...

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: CrazyWater

www.donaldjtrump.com...

sigh...
How many times we hear the same rhetoric from trump-haters, who are just repeating tweets and MSM propaganda.

To be fair, some Trump-haters, like myself, have just looked at Trump's record as a socialist and a democrat (and his record with the reform party, too) and we considered the fact that he is running for the nomination of a highly corrupt party (the GOP) -- that he seems to utterly despise -- and we have naturally deduced that he is not who he claims to be.

And if he is not who he claims to be, then all the flack from the media that he and his supporters are getting (which he loves and his supporters hate) may just be for the benefit of democrats and to the detriment of his supporters...and to the detriment of the GOP.

There's no compelling reason anyone should trust him. No one can convince me I should.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: CrazyWater

www.donaldjtrump.com...

sigh...
How many times we hear the same rhetoric from trump-haters, who are just repeating tweets and MSM propaganda.

LoL as you post Trump propaganda thats hilarious.

The funny thing there, is that even with what you posted, That is not a path to do the things he says hes going to do LMAO its just still more rhetoric!

And do you have any idea what Tariffs would do?

Maybe you should link yourself some information on how BAD an idea that is and educate yourself there sweety.

a reply to: CrazyWater

Childish insults are not suitable for mature discussion.
Live in your fantasy world if you wish to not see the facts.


ETA: Oh and.... anyone who calls me "sweety" automatically gains my total disrespect.

.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

ETA: Oh and.... anyone who calls me "sweety" automatically gains my total disrespect.

.

I've always felt that "Sweety" is a subtle, demeaning, offensive, and completely un-PC term to use when referring to a woman -- or anyone, really. I cringed when Obama referred to a reporter as "Sweety," in 2008.

On the other hand, Trump supporters seem to agree that political-correctness is damaging the nation. It's bad. PC is very, very bad. Like, the mantra that Trump is un-PC is the backbone of his entire campaign.

Honestly, I think you should embrace being spoken to the way that Trump (and many other jack*sses in a position to feel superior) speak to women.

Bimbo, Pig, and Slob are ok...why is 'Sweety' off-limits?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

haha!

Seriously. I am on this forum to have serious discussions.
Not to engage in childish/middle-school silliness.

I am not going to get baited into such stupidity.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Oh.

Ok.

For the record, I don't think it's silly. I think Trump is a jack*ss and that he's un-PC for the sole purpose of making his supporters look terrible. No one wants to be spoken to in a demeaning way. You don't want to be spoken to that way.

I actually understood why you didn't.

Surely, you can see why so many people aren't amused, inspired, or impressed by Trump's 'un-PC' rhetoric. He's an a-hole who is reducing the national conversation on all kinds of issues to demeaning, polarizing insults. He's a manipulator and it's to the detriment of his campaign, the GOP, and his supporters.

It's his first run for office obviously he's going to make mistakes.

Give me a break people.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Aazadan

and this:
www.donaldjtrump.com...

Trumps opinion is that the point on a Laffer curve where revenue is maximized is quite low against all evidence. I take it you agree with him?