It is...
It is...
Silliest of Willies wrote:
Wait- so you're cool with waiting for evidence here for an anti-Trump individual, but not for Judge Kavanaugh? (Who has since been confirmed, after you predicted he would NOT be confirmed on the day of silly girl's testimony.)
I thought all women must be believed at all times? Hmm.
Yeah, you guys are totally reasonable and not driven by TDS at all (.....huge eyeroll.....).
And nearly all you dummies on the Right 100% believed Kavanaugh and trashed his accuser, but are 100% certain that Bill Clinton committed multiple rapes (not to mention had Vince Foster murdered) and will now of course forever refer to Avenatti as a woman abuser whether or not a shred of evidence ever emerges that he did that (not saying evidence won't emerge, only saying: if it doesn't, it won't matter to you).
Don't even try to play the hypocrisy/fairness angle.
agip wrote:
Harambe wrote:
So when does this tax cut start paying for itself? Deficit back up to recession-level numbers...
you know the facts so far seem to be that revenue is UP, despite the tax cuts. It's the spending that is killing us.
I imagine that if the old tax rates were still in place, the deficit would be far smaller of course...but we shouldn't think that the tax cuts caused revenue to go negative.
And it's not clear what will happen in April when people file for refunds..I suspect people kept their old withholding numbers, so many will get large refunds, reducing the tax revenue more than so far.
Revenue has increased but not nearly enough to cover for increased spending. Military spending bump + tax cut is moronic.
couldn't wrote:
It's "couldn't care less."
It is could care less.
Harambe wrote:
agip wrote:
you know the facts so far seem to be that revenue is UP, despite the tax cuts. It's the spending that is killing us.
I imagine that if the old tax rates were still in place, the deficit would be far smaller of course...but we shouldn't think that the tax cuts caused revenue to go negative.
And it's not clear what will happen in April when people file for refunds..I suspect people kept their old withholding numbers, so many will get large refunds, reducing the tax revenue more than so far.
Revenue has increased but not nearly enough to cover for increased spending. Military spending bump + tax cut is moronic.
If revenue increased then why do you have a problem with the tax cut?
And nearly all you dummies on the Left 100% believed Clinton and trashed his accusers, but are 100% certain that Kavanaugh committed multiple rapes (not to mention doesn't have the temperment for the SCOTUS) and will now of course forever refer to Kavanaugh as a woman abuser whether or not a shred of evidence ever emerges that he did that (not saying evidence won't emerge, only saying: if it doesn't, it won't matter to you).
Don't even try to play the hypocrisy/fairness angle.
Hardloper wrote:
If revenue increased then why do you have a problem with the tax cut?
You prove your ignorance once again. To quote republicans, "It's the deficit, stupid."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/13/its_the_deficit_stupid_96985.htmlFlagpole wrote:
1) Clinton's impeachment had nothing directly to do with the original investigation into his activities...in fact much further removed than Trump's financial crimes which go to potential reason for colluding with Russia OR just Obstructing Justice. I'm certain you were ok with that. For the record I was also ok with it. I thought he should have been convicted and removed from office.
Not that it matters but I thought your old name on here was "Flagpole Willy" because you liked William Clinton. Guess not. BTW, Bill Clinton's approval went as high as 73% after the failed impeachment attempt, so it appears you're in the minority there and most people thought it was unimportant.
tax cut wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
If revenue increased then why do you have a problem with the tax cut?
You prove your ignorance once again. To quote republicans, "It's the deficit, stupid."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/13/its_the_deficit_stupid_96985.html
silly rabbit, quoting conservative thought at Republicans. Dude, there are no more conservatives. They are trumpists now, with different concerns.
But to answer Hardloper's question - when the economy is strong you want to keep taxes up, so you pay down debt. Lowering taxes during a strong period is foolish because you want to have the freedom to cut taxes in the next recession.
that's leaving out the whole spending side of the equation, but yeah if you wan to spend trillions of dollars in new money, you better not cut taxes. Otherwise this is what happens - the deficit balloons.
Hardloper wrote:
Not that it matters but I thought your old name on here was "Flagpole Willy" because you liked William Clinton. Guess not.
If it doesn't matter then why bring it up? It obviously matters a lot to you. You have a very strange obsession, brah.
agip wrote:
silly rabbit, quoting conservative thought at Republicans. Dude, there are no more conservatives. They are trumpists now, with different concerns.
But to answer Hardloper's question - when the economy is strong you want to keep taxes up, so you pay down debt. Lowering taxes during a strong period is foolish because you want to have the freedom to cut taxes in the next recession.
that's leaving out the whole spending side of the equation, but yeah if you wan to spend trillions of dollars in new money, you better not cut taxes. Otherwise this is what happens - the deficit balloons.
But tax receipts are already up, so I don't see what your problem is. Your problem seems to be on the spending side only. I disagree on the value of paying down the debt BTW, the priority should be making the economy strong and letting interest rates go back to normal.
Hardloper wrote:
... so I don't see what your problem is.
Idiots, like you, cannot see what the problem is. It is you.
you don't see wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
... so I don't see what your problem is.
Idiots, like you, cannot see what the problem is. It is you.
Hardloper trolls all day long from his "work". He usually posts under a bunch of fake names. His employer will catch him one day and then . . . . out he goes. Sad, so sad.
Say What????! wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
For starters, they should have brought more witnesses before the committee.
The FBI investigation was hamstrung by the White House. They didn't verify the timeline. They didn't check Mark Judge's employment records at the Safeway. They didn't interview the witnesses that were named by the victims. And when it came time to review the report, 100 senators were forced to share a single copy and given a very limited amount of time to see it.
The whole thing was rushed to get it jammed through before the midterms.
Like I said, Democrats would have loved to see all the facts come out. But there was nothing resembling due process in that whole affair. As a result, we probably put a rapist on the Supreme Court.
1) More witnesses? The witness Ford said could corroborate her statements, couldn't. The other allegations were looked at by the FBI and deemed not credible. In fact, a couple of them (plus Avenetti) are in deep sh!t over it now.
2) There was no timeline to verify. Ford's lone "witness" didn't say it happened. Checking Judge's records would have done nothing help with the decision. All a smokescreen by Dems. Apparently, everyone saw that except for you.
3) There was only one alleged victim that Repubs, Dems and the FBI deemed credible. That person's witness couldn't corroborate her allegations. You didn't see Dems distancing themselves from Avenetti after he brought two allegations forward. I wonder why?
4) Everyone had enough time to read the report. It was not going to change 95+ of those Senators' minds anyway. You think it was going to change Bernie Sanders' decision. Really? And it turns out that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by Kavanaugh in the investigative report.
5) Jammed through? When did Kavanaugh get nominated? How many hours of testimony did he give? How many hours of testimony did Ford give? The FBI conducted an investigation. they found no evidence of wrongdoing.
6) Jammed through? You don't think it was a stall tactic by Dems? Why do you think that once it became apparent that Ford's story could not be corroborated and the other allegations were found to be not credible that Dems changed tactics to say he was a drunk and that he was too much of a hothead? It's because Plan A had failed.
7) Stop watching MSNBC , CNN and opinion pieces. Broaden your horizons. You need to open your eyes.
1) In a court case, you allowed to call any witness that might be helpful. There were many to hear from, including other accusers, corroborating witnesses, character witnesses, and expert witnesses. Expert testimony would have been especially helpful in evaluating the veracity of Dr. Ford's memories.
2) Timeline is important in any case. Ford's testimony about the incident at the Safeway could have been verified, but it was not.
3) You can't deem someone credible if they aren't allowed to testify. Deborah Ramirez was very credible. Dems and the FBI absolutely never said she was not credible. You are lying about that.
4) A few hours is not enough time for 100 people to read and comprehend a single copy of an FBI report. Your assertion is a complete joke. You don't know what was in the report so you can't possibly know if it would have changed anyone's mind.
5) Yes, it was jammed through. The claims of Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez should have been fully vetted. There is no limit on how long the confirmation process has to take. For a Supreme Court pick, we need to take as long as necessary. That definitely was not done. See my other points.
6) Yes, it was jammed through. See my other points.
7) I mostly read. That's the best way to learn.
Tiny only hires the best people. His southeast head of the EPA just got thrown in the slammer. He was brought up on ethics charges because he tried help a coal company avoid the cost of a toxic waste cleanup.
How could Tiny have known he was a crook? All he had to do was look at how he held a similar job in 2009 where he was forced to resign because of, you guessed it, ethics violations.
Say What????! wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
For starters, they should have brought more witnesses before the committee.
The FBI investigation was hamstrung by the White House. They didn't verify the timeline. They didn't check Mark Judge's employment records at the Safeway. They didn't interview the witnesses that were named by the victims. And when it came time to review the report, 100 senators were forced to share a single copy and given a very limited amount of time to see it.
The whole thing was rushed to get it jammed through before the midterms.
Like I said, Democrats would have loved to see all the facts come out. But there was nothing resembling due process in that whole affair. As a result, we probably put a rapist on the Supreme Court.
1) More witnesses? The witness Ford said could corroborate her statements, couldn't. The other allegations were looked at by the FBI and deemed not credible. In fact, a couple of them (plus Avenetti) are in deep sh!t over it now.
2) There was no timeline to verify. Ford's lone "witness" didn't say it happened. Checking Judge's records would have done nothing help with the decision. All a smokescreen by Dems. Apparently, everyone saw that except for you.
3) There was only one alleged victim that Repubs, Dems and the FBI deemed credible. That person's witness couldn't corroborate her allegations. You didn't see Dems distancing themselves from Avenetti after he brought two allegations forward. I wonder why?
4) Everyone had enough time to read the report. It was not going to change 95+ of those Senators' minds anyway. You think it was going to change Bernie Sanders' decision. Really? And it turns out that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by Kavanaugh in the investigative report.
5) Jammed through? When did Kavanaugh get nominated? How many hours of testimony did he give? How many hours of testimony did Ford give? The FBI conducted an investigation. they found no evidence of wrongdoing.
6) Jammed through? You don't think it was a stall tactic by Dems? Why do you think that once it became apparent that Ford's story could not be corroborated and the other allegations were found to be not credible that Dems changed tactics to say he was a drunk and that he was too much of a hothead? It's because Plan A had failed.
7) Stop watching MSNBC , CNN and opinion pieces. Broaden your horizons. You need to open your eyes.
I won't respond to all of your nonsense, but I will on your #1:
Avenatti is NOT in deep anything over the Kavanaugh stuff. Grassley has said he wants to investigate, and Avenatti has said he welcomes that and that an investigation will vindicate him and his client about what happened. Could Avenatti be not telling the truth? Sure, time will tell. But, he is not in hot water now over this at all. All I can do with him so far since he became a public figure is to look at what has happened with his client Stormy Daniels, and her story has been vindicated by the recent report that Trump knew about the payment to her all along and was involved throughout the process, and of course Cohen pleaded GUILTY to two FELONY counts of campaign finance law violations and said Trump told him to do that.
care les wrote:
couldn't wrote:
It's "couldn't care less."
It is could care less.
Depends on what you mean. MOST people mean that they "could not care less" when they say that, meaning there is now level of caring less than what they currently have.
If someone says "I could care less", that means they care at least a little bit, leaving room to actually care less, and that is not what people mean when they say that.
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
Silliest of Willies wrote:
Wait- so you're cool with waiting for evidence here for an anti-Trump individual, but not for Judge Kavanaugh? (Who has since been confirmed, after you predicted he would NOT be confirmed on the day of silly girl's testimony.)
I thought all women must be believed at all times? Hmm.
Yeah, you guys are totally reasonable and not driven by TDS at all (.....huge eyeroll.....).
And nearly all you dummies on the Right 100% believed Kavanaugh and trashed his accuser, but are 100% certain that Bill Clinton committed multiple rapes (not to mention had Vince Foster murdered) and will now of course forever refer to Avenatti as a woman abuser whether or not a shred of evidence ever emerges that he did that (not saying evidence won't emerge, only saying: if it doesn't, it won't matter to you).
Don't even try to play the hypocrisy/fairness angle.
CORRECT! You know what I will say if Avenatti is found to be a woman abuser? That he's an ass and should lose his law license and not be respected by anyone ever again.
I don't understand why this is difficult for Republicans to do the same thing when someone in their ranks falls.
Hardloper wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) Clinton's impeachment had nothing directly to do with the original investigation into his activities...in fact much further removed than Trump's financial crimes which go to potential reason for colluding with Russia OR just Obstructing Justice. I'm certain you were ok with that. For the record I was also ok with it. I thought he should have been convicted and removed from office.
Not that it matters but I thought your old name on here was "Flagpole Willy" because you liked William Clinton. Guess not. BTW, Bill Clinton's approval went as high as 73% after the failed impeachment attempt, so it appears you're in the minority there and most people thought it was unimportant.
I was originally "Flagpole Willy", and I chose that name for two reasons:
1) Run this idea up the flagpole.
2) I voted for Clinton twice.
I later realized my moniker had a sexual innuendo that I didn't intend, and I since I had dropped my support for B. Clinton, it made sense to drop the "Willy" part of the name, so I did.
I don't care about being in the minority with regard to Clinton. He WAS a good president, but he was also exposed as a phony. I do not support phonies. He is an untold number of times smarter than Trump and he understands politics way better than Trump understands how to close an umbrella, but he is still a womanizer and thus a phony.
To wit, I also at one time, before Trump began this latest run for President, thought he was a successful businessman, and I once upon a time even defended him here on these threads somewhere. I have changed my opinion about him as facts have emerged. This is what everyone should have done by now on Trump, because he is a lying criminal.
So, I don't like either of them. I currently am way more focused on Trump because not only is he a much worse person than Bill Clinton, he is a serial liar and criminal AND he is the sitting President. Focus needs to be put on the actions of any sitting President, good or bad...Trump just happens to be a bad one...a REALLY bad one.
Flagpole wrote:
care les wrote:
It is could care less.
Depends on what you mean. MOST people mean that they "could not care less" when they say that, meaning there is now level of caring less than what they currently have.
If someone says "I could care less", that means they care at least a little bit, leaving room to actually care less, and that is not what people mean when they say that.
The use of the phrase is what determines their meaning. "Could care less" is used to mean you don't care and are blowing someone off. That is just the way it is. Grammarians can comply all they like, but when words and phrases become common usage then they are the one who need to adjust their way of thinking. Grammar and word usage are not, have never been, constant.