I have written a poem for you, DG. It's OK to admit you were wrong about everything.
With age sometimes comes wisdom,
With wisdom sometimes comes tolerance,
With tolerance sometimes comes acceptance,
And with acceptance comes inner peace.
I have written a poem for you, DG. It's OK to admit you were wrong about everything.
With age sometimes comes wisdom,
With wisdom sometimes comes tolerance,
With tolerance sometimes comes acceptance,
And with acceptance comes inner peace.
So funny wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Wrong, trump has muddied the picture significantly. The truth is neither democrats nor republicans have really wanted to collectively try harder to help the middle class. They have preferred the status quo of satisfying special interest parties, all the while arguing about the causes to blame the other. The strategy has been when one side loses they wait for people to get fed up with the other, instead of winning them over with better proposals. I wish the idea that an outsider would fix something worked, but Trump was a disastrous choice, unless the only thing you care about as a voter is lower corporate taxes, an even bigger military and isolationism.
We still have yet to agree that government isn't pushing policies to help improve the wealth gap and middle class in general. They are responsible for this, and we have the resources and means to improve. However, until we loosen the grip of lobbies, agree that government is critical to success (and not this crazy notion they are just "getting in the way"). and hold politicians more accountable., we aren't going make any policy improvements. Trump is pounding his chest and taking decisive action, but his solutions are just wrong. So far he has been the chief divider, not unifier. The solution is not to restrict our trade, but to grab a bigger share of the growing pie. He is doing the opposite.
Good- so you agree that the Democats' long-standing position of being for the "middle class" has been a sham. This was a huge part of their base, before they went with a strictly identity-driven political strategy.
If president Obama had the balls to say that he was going to implement tariffs against So-and-so country because they were hurting our middle class, the Dems/Libs would have been ALL FOR IT, and the Republicans would have be strongly against it. You cannot even try to deny this. The Dem politicians would have painted the Reps as trying to kill the middle class and line their pockets.
Trump says it, and all of a sudden you have "Fair Trade" artsy folks talking about free trade and grabbing a bigger piece of the growing pie (just to use your example). It is hilarious.
Hey Lying Gary, why you gotta go hiding behind your newest little friend here?
.
.
.
Huh, Lying Gary?
Hey Dude wrote:
So funny wrote:
Good- so you agree that the Democats' long-standing position of being for the "middle class" has been a sham. This was a huge part of their base, before they went with a strictly identity-driven political strategy.
If president Obama had the balls to say that he was going to implement tariffs against So-and-so country because they were hurting our middle class, the Dems/Libs would have been ALL FOR IT, and the Republicans would have be strongly against it. You cannot even try to deny this. The Dem politicians would have painted the Reps as trying to kill the middle class and line their pockets.
Trump says it, and all of a sudden you have "Fair Trade" artsy folks talking about free trade and grabbing a bigger piece of the growing pie (just to use your example). It is hilarious.
Hey Lying Gary, why you gotta go hiding behind your newest little friend here?
.
.
.
Huh, Lying Gary?
Gary's Trumpland is falling apart. It was all only a paper facade.
DiscoGary wrote:
This thing just keeps getting worse. Apparently this bill makes it illegal to build the wall with any of the prototypes that Trump commissioned. They have to use the same ineffectual fencing that they already have. Trump is done. He got played by his own party. ... and we don't know how much other bad stuff is in the other 2,000 pages yet, but it will do nothing but get worse. He didn't even try to negotiate on this. He signed something "without knowing what was in it". Excuses won't cut it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump lose half his supporters because of this.
He should resign today because there is no chance he will get any more of his agenda passed, and Mueller will dig into his business contacts with the intention of destroying the lives and businesses of anyone who ever made a deal with Trump in the past. There's no point in staying. Nothing to be gained and a lot to lose.
He showed us the way, but could not walk the path.
Hey, come on, Lying Gary! Don't quit on us like that!
Russian collusion might have been blatant, but Russian collusion with Trump is not. Mueller will not be able to tie Trump directly to any Russian collusion. You need more than tertiary business links. Trump never does any dirty work directly.
It’s more likely a female or tax fraud will bing him down.
https://youtu.be/ZnY7D4M4k68?t=51XY wrote:
Russian collusion might have been blatant, but Russian collusion with Trump is not. Mueller will not be able to tie Trump directly to any Russian collusion. You need more than tertiary business links. Trump never does any dirty work directly.
It’s more likely a female or tax fraud will bing him down.
Noticer of dominance wrote:
And you're about to prevail again, Flagpole, just by sticking to your guns and exercising common sense and moral discernment. Well done.
OK, Flagpole. Enough with the 'Noticer of dominance' nonsense. It's really kind of embarrassing to watch.
OK Guy wrote:
OK, Flagpole.
HI, JAMIN-HARDLOPER!!
TrollLoper wrote:
I'm a moron!!
Gonna have to agree.
OK Guy wrote:
TrollLoper wrote:
HI, JAMIN-HARDLOPER!!
Oh, you caught us with our pants down.
As expected
Count Chocula wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Haha you wish. I'll go ahead and do one of those shout outs to the moderators, they can check my IP :)
I'm not Trollminator but since my username is unregistered I'm sure I will be doubted. FWIW, I don't really agree with his posts all that often.
Yes brother, we are doubting you...but I love you man!!!!!
OK Guy wrote:
Noticer of dominance wrote:
And you're about to prevail again, Flagpole, just by sticking to your guns and exercising common sense and moral discernment. Well done.
OK, Flagpole. Enough with the 'Noticer of dominance' nonsense. It's really kind of embarrassing to watch.
I agree, it's nonsense indeed.
Rigged for Trump. wrote:
Russian collusion is blatant.
Let's begin our journey with George Papadapoulos.
If I'm not mistaken, Ryan's "memo" actually explains how Mr. P. was generating red flags because of a recent trip to Russia. And then he was plucked out of relative obscurity to work the Trump campaign, then publicly praised by Trump. Of course, as things looked bad for Mr. P., Trump declares it "so long ago" and immaterial.
BTW, you'll note how the Trumpbots stick to one single word, "collusion" then shift the definition around as needed.
There is no question Trump is under the influence of the Russian State. The legal consequences of that aren't known. It's uncharted legal territory.
Noticer of dominance wrote:
And you're about to prevail again, Flagpole, just by sticking to your guns and exercising common sense and moral discernment. Well done.
Thanks for noticing. Still need to wait for Mueller to be done before I can crow a lot, but that's coming.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Rigged for Trump. wrote:
Russian collusion is blatant.
Let's begin our journey with George Papadapoulos.
If I'm not mistaken, Ryan's "memo" actually explains how Mr. P. was generating red flags because of a recent trip to Russia. And then he was plucked out of relative obscurity to work the Trump campaign, then publicly praised by Trump. Of course, as things looked bad for Mr. P., Trump declares it "so long ago" and immaterial.
BTW, you'll note how the Trumpbots stick to one single word, "collusion" then shift the definition around as needed.
There is no question Trump is under the influence of the Russian State. The legal consequences of that aren't known. It's uncharted legal territory.
For any legal proceedings beyond a special council, the burden of proof will be to show knowledge and intent. Good luck proving that against Trump.
Christ, this guy! wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
If Russian collusion was blatant then why did Mueller's team release a report that they had charged a dozen Russians for nothing worse than identity theft on a Friday night during a school shooting news cycle? The only reason they did that was because they have nothing and needed to boost the "look how many people have been caught in Trump's russia scandal" number so that you guys can come on here and say "Mueller's already got 20 people. Trump must be next."
Mueller has nothing.
Mueller will take down Trump by persecuting his old business partners with endless investigations, trivial perjury charges, and lawsuits. That's the plan right now, and when Trump figures out that his agenda is dead he might realize that it isn't worth the fight any more. It will take Trump a couple of weeks to fully understand the depth of the mistake he made today. It will be interesting to see what he does when it sinks in.
Are you seriously THIS delusional? You honestly believe that Trump is being "persecuted"? How? How is that even remotely possible?
You're disappointing, DG.
Yes. Disappointing. Gary seemed close to seeing the light but he has stepped back into the crazy town spotlight.
With all of these sexual allegations against Trump, I get the feeling that the Dossier reports about Trump and Russian prostitutes peeing on each other are totally true.
OK Guy wrote:
Noticer of dominance wrote:
And you're about to prevail again, Flagpole, just by sticking to your guns and exercising common sense and moral discernment. Well done.
OK, Flagpole. Enough with the 'Noticer of dominance' nonsense. It's really kind of embarrassing to watch.
Not me, brother.
WEJO, DO AN IP CHECK, AND IF I LIE, BAN ME FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
XY wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Ryan's "memo" actually explains how Mr. P. was generating red flags because of a recent trip to Russia. And then he was plucked out of relative obscurity to work the Trump campaign, then publicly praised by Trump. Of course, as things looked bad for Mr. P., Trump declares it "so long ago" and immaterial.
BTW, you'll note how the Trumpbots stick to one single word, "collusion" then shift the definition around as needed.
There is no question Trump is under the influence of the Russian State. The legal consequences of that aren't known. It's uncharted legal territory.
For any legal proceedings beyond a special council, the burden of proof will be to show knowledge and intent. Good luck proving that against Trump.
I agree that trump knows nothing, about anything