Trump brings unity

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
They stood on that stage at a debate and pledged to support whoever the Republican nominee is. I don't care for Trump, but he's got a point. I heard the pledges.
 
Grooveriding

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,330
126
What a crybaby pee pants this character is. He perpetually needs himself a diaper change. How can he seriously be considered as a potential leader of a nation ? Spiteful and insecure little man.
 
Sheik Yerbouti

Sheik Yerbouti

Lifer
Feb 16, 2005
14,080
5,453
136
drumpf never leaves home without it.
Preferred-Victim-Card-new.png
 
Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,405
136
compuwiz1 said:
They stood on that stage at a debate and pledged to support whoever the Republican nominee is. I don't care for Trump, but he's got a point. I heard the pledges.
Click to expand...

While I agree with what you said, should them changing their minds or violating the pledge should be illegal?
 
B

BxgJ

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2015
1,054
123
106
Fanatical Meat said:
While I agree with what you said, should them changing their minds or violating the pledge should be illegal?
Click to expand...

Of course not. People can remember what was said and form their own opinion, fine. This just speaks to Trump's inability to take any criticism, as though he doesn't just think he should respond in such a manner, but that he is incapable of not doing so. What this implies should be a warning to at least some of his supporters.
 
B

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,970
30,851
136
WelshBloke said:
In the way that everyone thinks that hes a total cockwomble?
Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbouti said:
you Brits have the best insults :D
Click to expand...

Agreed, cockwomble....that's a new one for me. From Urban Dictionary:

Cockwomble
Male-directed insult. Also describes the tendency to rummage in your underwear massaging ones genitals as if looking for litter to pick up (hence womble )
Look at that guy. He is such a cockwomble.
#wanker #dickhead #nobber #womble #politician

Love the # tags with it as well.
 
sportage

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
The same people that love Ross Perot and love Ralph Nader love Donald Trump.
Those people that never have trusted the establishment.
The same people that have never voted for any establishment candidate.
The same people that either vote for the odd ball, or simply stay home.
The 6% that voted for Ralph Nader, the 20% that voter for Ross Perot.
So Donald Trump can count on somewhere between 6% and 20% support.
Sounds like a real winner to me. ;)
 
buckshot24

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Do you think he means legally never allowed to run again? I don't think he means this literally. Personally any GOPer who doesn't do everything in their power to stop Hillary should be booted out by the voters or change party affiliation. Trump has been getting hit harder than Hillary in these nevertrump circles.
 
Sonikku

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,906
4,930
136
sportage said:
The same people that love Ross Perot and love Ralph Nader love Donald Trump.
Those people that never have trusted the establishment.
The same people that have never voted for any establishment candidate.
The same people that either vote for the odd ball, or simply stay home.
The 6% that voted for Ralph Nader, the 20% that voter for Ross Perot.
So Donald Trump can count on somewhere between 6% and 20% support.
Sounds like a real winner to me. ;)
Click to expand...

I was only 8 at the time but if I could, I totally would have voted for Ross Perot. Fuck free trade. Fuck it right in the ass, and not in the pleasurable way either.
 
lopri

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
I do not see how protectionism can work for the U.S. Protectionism can work when you are an underdog, i.e. when you have something to protect against stronger competition. Even then it is best limited to selective industries for a short duration of time.
 
B

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,964
2
0
sportage said:
The same people that love Ross Perot and love Ralph Nader love Donald Trump.
Those people that never have trusted the establishment.
The same people that have never voted for any establishment candidate.
The same people that either vote for the odd ball, or simply stay home.
The 6% that voted for Ralph Nader, the 20% that voter for Ross Perot.
So Donald Trump can count on somewhere between 6% and 20% support.
Sounds like a real winner to me. ;)
Click to expand...


Not true ... up until 92 I was a dedicated Democrat but BC's promise to enact NAFTA and other job killing plans was the last straw and I bolted from the party and voted for Perot. Trump is nothing like Perot and equating them is an insult to both Perot and to those that voted for him.

Trump will get way more than 20% of the vote and likely at least double that -- best guess is Hillary will win by about 6% so we could be talking 53% versus 47% or perhaps a bit less figuring in a percent or two for third parties or mail ins.

Trump is likely to lose but it is by no means a certainty and it just goes to show how weak Hillary is that Trump is even within shouting distance of her given the vast number of mistakes he's made.


Brian
 
B

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,964
2
0
lopri said:
I do not see how protectionism can work for the U.S. Protectionism can work when you are an underdog, i.e. when you have something to protect against stronger competition. Even then it is best limited to selective industries for a short duration of time.
Click to expand...


This nonsense that you either except the downward death spiral of lost jobs or go full commie is -- nonsense! Prior to the huge wave of free trade deals the world economy worked just fine and the USA reached the #1 spot while we had tariffs. Trade doesn't stop because you wish to ensure that people earn a living wage for doing that work.

What I'd like to see is bilateral trade agreements that impose a tariff on goods imported from a nation with low wage levels, poor workplace safety controls and poor pollution controls. I'd impose a tariff of about 50% of the cost differential, but when the exporting nation improves it's wage levels, workplace safety and pollution controls the tariff is reduced. This would provide an incentive for nations to improve the lot of workers and the environment whereas the current goals of free trade are 180 degrees opposite of that and guarantee that wage levels decline, the workplace is more dangerous, and the environment is worse.

Only an idiot would think the trade deals and the consequences of them are good for the planet and the people that live on it -- though clearly there is short term benefit to the leisure class...


Brian
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Sonikku said:
I was only 8 at the time but if I could, I totally would have voted for Ross Perot. Fuck free trade. Fuck it right in the ass, and not in the pleasurable way either.
Click to expand...
:D +1

I was totally set to vote for Perot right up until he dropped out because "the CIA was conspiring to ruin is daughter's wedding". I can't take him being both a quitter AND crazy, so I voted for ol' Ron Paul instead. He's . . . not a quitter. lol

lopri said:
I do not see how protectionism can work for the U.S. Protectionism can work when you are an underdog, i.e. when you have something to protect against stronger competition. Even then it is best limited to selective industries for a short duration of time.
Click to expand...
I think you have that backward. When you're an underdog, protectionism doesn't work for you because your market is not worth the added effort and your domestic industries are likely not complete or particularly efficient, and you cannot produce most of what you need. A small or third world nation cannot make protectionism work because they cannot be self-sufficient and the profitability of their market is low, so they have to entice sellers. A small or third world nation is trying to protect companies that cannot compete with foreign competitors. When you're the USA, your market is worth virtually any effort because it is very profitable, your domestic industries are likely quite complete and efficient, and you have the ability to produce most things you need. A large first world nation is protecting not its industries and companies from foreign competitors, but its wage structures from cheap labor and low-cost regulatory burdens.

Brian Stirling said:
This nonsense that you either except the downward death spiral of lost jobs or go full commie is -- nonsense! Prior to the huge wave of free trade deals the world economy worked just fine and the USA reached the #1 spot while we had tariffs. Trade doesn't stop because you wish to ensure that people earn a living wage for doing that work.

What I'd like to see is bilateral trade agreements that impose a tariff on goods imported from a nation with low wage levels, poor workplace safety controls and poor pollution controls. I'd impose a tariff of about 50% of the cost differential, but when the exporting nation improves it's wage levels, workplace safety and pollution controls the tariff is reduced. This would provide an incentive for nations to improve the lot of workers and the environment whereas the current goals of free trade are 180 degrees opposite of that and guarantee that wage levels decline, the workplace is more dangerous, and the environment is worse.

Only an idiot would think the trade deals and the consequences of them are good for the planet and the people that live on it -- though clearly there is short term benefit to the leisure class...


Brian
Click to expand...
Damned well said, sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom