Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by F50Fanatic, Sep 19, 2017.
I hope she runs again just to see her lose and get humiliated once more.
John Podesta was like "She has begun to hate everyday Americans". You mean she has always hated and despised us Americans. She thinks she is above all of us. Her arrogance and sense of entitlement is very annoying and disgusting.
Jesus. Some deep seated hatred there, eh? She didn't say that she hated Americans. John Podesta said that she hated the expression "everyday Americans".
Hillary is bad, but there are a lot more horrible people out there in politics. I feel that the irrational hatred towards her is not very rational and completely disproportional.
Yeah, that's typically what irrational means.
no, but anytime she says anything it gets blown up all over the news. she has released a book and is doing a tour so theres a bump right now
you are believing the right wing hype. the elites always have back a candidate, and usually both. and if you dont think 'elites' backed donald trump explain why goldman sachs and exxon mobil are in the white house, explain the mercers and the koch group, explain why koch group threatening to stop donations has the republicans scambling to repeal obama care in reckless fashion and push through tax cuts
so your happy with donald trump as the president still or what?
i know this is just a petty sentiment, but hoping shitty people run just lowers the bar
theres no chance hillary makes it out of primaries next run. donald trump has opened up the gates to allow anyone with money and fame a shot at the presidency and I think it could end up being a good thing (assuming we dont end up with kid rock)
For a long time, smart, principled people have stayed away from politics, and this is a shot to take the most influential position for those interested in doing good but not interested in the shitty due paying you have to do to get there typically
you know what the shitty, demoralizing thing is?
The democrat party establishment HATES bernie sanders. He goes against the corporate big money factions that make up the backbone of BOTH parties. The constituents love him, the leadership hates him because there is no big money coming in for an anti establishment, anti corporate, anti corruption candidate. Expect a bernie sanders(and anyone associated with his platform)smear job coming from all directions around election time
I have no doubt that sanders would have beat trump (low bar) but the establishment would have fought that all the way
I totally agree with you that we have our fair share of very bad politicians. But Mrs. Clinton is on a different level. She has went further beyond and ascended past the typical bad politician category. We can't think of another candidate who is so obviously and openly corrupt, and at the same time so smug and condescending about it.
The way she laughs at the Benghazi victims was horrible and disgusting. I'm not going to argue that Trump was better than her or anything, but the way she labeled anyone who plans to vote for the only other viable candidate as deplorable or stupid shows just how arrogant and condescending she is. She is ten times the narcissist Trump ever was.
No, the majority of them are not racists or sexists, they are just trying to keep their jobs so they could feed their families and send their kids to college. If Trump promised to take actions to keep Americans employed, while Mrs. Clinton is more enthusiastic than anyone else when it comes to outsourcing, I don't think it is a crime to vote for Trump. It's better to vote someone who makes empty promises than to vote for someone who wants to take away your job and call you a racist deplorable if you disagree with her. And you could always add her criminal records into the equation, but that will be a debate for another time.
Clinton is an awful politician and an awful human being. It is sad to think law-abiding citizens like us have to share this planet with this kind of person.
The leftist media here keeps posting stories full of excuses as to why she lost.
You don't understand it was her fucking turn!
There is a lot to dislike about him, but he is still lesser of the two evils compared with the candidate the Democratic Party is going to select for 2020. It will just be a watered-down version of Hillary, someone who is less aloof and less arrogant than Mrs. Clinton, but the same when it comes doing everything in his or her power to harm the American middle-class, especially when it comes to encourage even more outsourcing of jobs.
So what difference does it make? It will just be another elitist candidate who is full of contempt and hatred for the hardworking American people. A Hillary 2.0. Do you honestly think they are going to tolerate a populist candidate like Sanders?
what has trump or the republican party shown you that is good for the middle class
the health plan tax break
the tax break tax break
or do you think the coal mining shit was meaningful
He authorized increasing the amount of immigration officers, which is a plus for anyone who lives in areas with high volumes of illegals. This means more blue collar job openings.
My taxes are the usual.
What are the problems that you face with all the illegal immigrants in your area?
I find quite puzzling the whole argument of fighting illegal immigration as a strong point for Trump because illegal immigration has been decreasing for years before Trump came into the scene. Obama deported more illegals than any other President. He gave a lot of powers to immigration and border agencies. It's weird that the strongest quality that you perceive in Trump is something that both Bush and Obama were already doing, very strongly.
It begs the question: is the fear of illegals and the need to fight them real things or just political crap that certain sections of the Republican party have been feeding down the throat of people who believe in it without questioning it?
Well, he didn't do anything about taxes yet. Good news is that under his plan you'll continue to be paying the same; bad news is that at the same time rich people will be paying a lot less. This will keep driving inequality deeper into the american population, and this is bad. If you care about that at all, of course.
They tend to drive their old, shitty Civics and F150s 15MPH below the speed limit without insurance. They also drive drunk a lot. People like him come back and kill people. They use up resources like healthcare, schooling, and food assistance without paying their share (getting paid cash means no paying taxes.) They often have several families living in single family apartments which usually makes for loud, trashy neighbors. Some of the most violent gangs have illegals in their ranks.
So because Obama deported some, we shouldn't try to deport more? That doesn' make sense. And if Trump didn't authorize 10k more ICE agents, that's less ICE agents to enforce the laws. I thought that was obvious.
Move to Houston, you'll see it's very real.
Show me how they'll pay a lot less. I read the reports filled with "may" and "could" yet haven't seen the actual math.
hiring 10k more govt employees while cutting taxes?
the party of small govt and fiscal responsibility indeed
Deportation is the federal government's area so no small government affected.
Dude, Bush deported more people than Clinton, and Obama deported more than Bush. If the winner of the election was Hillary or Jeb or whomever, the number would probably still be increasing. The american government has been fighting illegals and making the borders strong already, independent of the party in power. Trump was just very noisy about it, making it sound like no one else is doing anything, and people believed he was the saviour.
But ICE is just one part of the law enforcement apparatus responsible for protecting U.S. borders. The U.S. Border Patrol, which is also part of DHS, had 19,828 agents in fiscal year 2016, with 17,026 of those agents patrolling the southern border. The number of border patrol agents doubled between 2004 and 2011, and has remained steady since.
I'm also curious on how he is tripling the number of agents, since both Bush and Obama had trouble increasing the number in a smaller scale:
The number of CBP agents doubled during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, from 10,000 to 21,000. But there were problems. New agents were rushed through training and into the field, some without completed background checks.
What about letting the immigrants flow in unrestrained and letting the invisible hand of the market taking care of them? Small government rules!
Again, you're posting a lot, but saying nothing. Nothing was mentioned about previous administrations. The conversation was about what Trump did that I liked. I answered it with a fact. Had Hill dog won and did the same, I'd also be for it. You're the typical neo-leftist that rants about off topic BS as if it has any direct relevance.
The market has nothing to do with immigration. You don't seem to understand what "the market" is.
Markets influence a lot of immigration. Market policies normally come attached to immigrations rules to allow workers to come into a nation and make the economy work -- this is what they have been doing in NZ for the last 10 years. This is what the Emirates does. And some south asian countries. And the Republic of Ireland. Similarly, one of the biggest drivers of the reduction in net immigration in the US was the 2008 financial crisis; more Mexicans returned home than arrived after that period, simply because jobs and opportunities were more scarce.
I'm being sardonic by saying that the free market should take care of immigration. I was poking fun at the inconsistency in the conservative mind of postulating that having as few rules as possible for everything is excellent, except immigration, where there should be a lot of rules.
I know, being this ignorant must be difficult for you, sorry
markets influence immigration in that if they werent getting hired and paid they wouldnt be coming here