Trump's First 100 Days
Quote: darkozNot really. I foresee it happening. Doesnt mean i wish to wager on it. Dont confuse predictions with absolutism. If i was a guaranteed future predictor i would be playing roulette right now
It means that you just post BS and then won't back it up when there are $$ at stake...no one here is confused about that...except for you apparently.
Quote: ParadigmIt means that you just post BS and then won't back it up when there are $$ at stake...no one here is confused about that...except for you apparently.
Wow. U sound like those high school bullies. I Havent dealt with those in 30 years
I Dare you i dare you. Aww u dont know what you are talking about
Whatever. I made a prediction. Time not my money will determine if it comes to pass. Im not psychic and may be proven wrong.
Why are you so invested in this. Upset u cant get your gambling fix on. A wager u proposed was not accepted?
I dont need to prove myself by making wagers. All i need to do is wait and see what comes to fruition. And if im wrong it unfazes me because it was just a prediction. I dont base my livelihood on it
PS. New info is trump is about to be investigated for money laundering involving terrorist organizations.
Hmm. The clock is ticking till the end of the year
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/03/05/rachel-maddow-history-finishing-top-10-viewed-shows-tv.html
Quote: darkozWow. U sound like those high school bullies. I Havent dealt with those in 30 years
I Dare you i dare you. Aww u dont know what you are talking about
Whatever. I made a prediction. Time not my money will determine if it comes to pass. Im not psychic and may be proven wrong.
Why are you so invested in this. Upset u cant get your gambling fix on. A wager u proposed was not accepted?
I dont need to prove myself by making wagers. All i need to do is wait and see what comes to fruition. And if im wrong it unfazes me because it was just a prediction. I dont base my livelihood on it
PS. New info is trump is about to be investigated for money laundering involving terrorist organizations.
Hmm. The clock is ticking till the end of the year
No!No!NO!!!!!.
You said something. Now you must back it up. To the DEATH if necessary.
That's what a real Merican MAN would do. Offer to bet a BILLION dollars, but only if he puts up his money first.
I'm willing to hold both of your money, by the way.
Trump. Terrorists. Money laundering
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLDIVi-vBsOEyETRGoRP9y8zhyu6bHl6iK&v=dy9Qtf3P6Nw
Quote: darkozHere is why rachel is getting the ratings. Last night more revelations. She goes her round about way of explaining but thats her schtick. When she gets u there it is all the more satisfying
Trump. Terrorists. Money laundering
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLDIVi-vBsOEyETRGoRP9y8zhyu6bHl6iK&v=dy9Qtf3P6Nw
When Fox starts talking about this, then he is in deep shit.
Hmm. Remember u heard it from me first
So wheres the BS?
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/07/report-trump-assertion-of-obama-wiretapping-may-increase-impeachment-odds/21875411/
Quote: ams288The TrumpCare rollout, summarized in three tweets:
That's a good one.
Quote: darkozHere is why rachel is getting the ratings. Last night more revelations. She goes her round about way of explaining but thats her schtick. When she gets u there it is all the more satisfying
Trump. Terrorists. Money laundering
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLDIVi-vBsOEyETRGoRP9y8zhyu6bHl6iK&v=dy9Qtf3P6Nw
Wowser.... I'm sure more things like this will pop up.
Quote: billryanNo!No!NO!!!!!.
You said something. Now you must back it up. To the DEATH if necessary.
That's what a real Merican MAN would do. Offer to bet a BILLION dollars, but only if he puts up his money first.
I'm willing to hold both of your money, by the way.
Actually making some outlandish claim and not being willing/able to back it up is what Trump does...so DarkOz = Trump...got it, carry on.
Quote: tringlomane
That's a good one.
I wouldn't expect Ams288 to understand, but National Review is not a "conservative source". It's a neo-con source.
Haven't some righties here made that EXACT SAME ARGUMENT?
Also, good luck finding good healthcare for less than $100 a month. iPhones are WAY cheaper than quality healthcare.
Quote: bobbartopI wouldn't expect Ams288 to understand, but National Review is not a "conservative source". It's a neo-con source.
I wouldn't expect you to understand (it's not the National Enquirer, after all), but National Review is absolutely a "conservative source."
Quote:The online version, National Review Online, describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review
Quote: Dalex64Several of you are trying to equate some individuals from the collective left with one individual who is the president, and are using the logical fallacy that can be summed up with "one or some therefore all"
No. I'm saying if lacking proof for an accusation makes you mentally ill, then there are many people on the left who are therefore mentally ill. I don't think all the people on the left are mentally ill, FWIW.
Quote: JohnnyQI do NOT have proof that trump is mentally ill or completely unstable.
I just look at his actions objectively and draw the logical conclusion. For the sake of our country, let's hope I am wrong, in spite of the evidence.
What? You just said he's mentally ill for making accusations without proof. But you just made an accusation without proof.
Quote: steeldcoThere's not a question in my mind that Mr. Trump is not playing with a full deck. Furthermore there should be some sort of testing conducted so that this never happens again.
I'd wager (if there was some way to confirm it) that most Republicans who have to defend him on some of his statements are rolling their eyes in private, before they come out and try to explain what the President really said.
Ain't no one fooling no one.
Hopefully he was a good guy when he had his senses about him.
The evidence that he is mentally ill or completely unstable is his bizarre accusations. Even a right-winger has to see that, unless they are, dare I say it, also completely unstable as well.Quote: RSWhat? You just said he's mentally ill for making accusations without proof. But you just made an accusation without proof.
OK, let's all agree that there is a lot more evidence that trump is unstable, based on trump's OWN bizarre tweets AND statements, than there is that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast in this presidential election.
Quote: darkoz23000 views since posted last night on youtube
Again is u havent watched this u need to
Rachel maddow just connected the dots between trump russia and corruption
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WX8dgbr5EI8
Hmmm... money laundering, Bank of Cyprus...
Rings a bell somehow.
That puts them in distinguished company:Quote: ams288Jason Chaffetz is taking a lot of heat today for saying people may have to choose between their iPhones that they love so much and healthcare.
Haven't some righties here made that EXACT SAME ARGUMENT?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijQIJAK0NFA
That is distinguished company:Quote: ams288Jason Chaffetz is taking a lot of heat today for saying people may have to choose between their iPhones that they love so much and healthcare.
Haven't some righties here made that EXACT SAME ARGUMENT?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijQIJAK0NFA
Quote: ams288I wouldn't expect you to understand (it's not the National Enquirer, after all), but National Review is absolutely a "conservative source."
Quote:The online version, National Review Online, describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review
lol @ a liberal quoting me from Wiki. Who do you think you are? Obviously you haven't a clue about the history of the neo-con movement. And why should you.
Quote: bobbartopQuote: ams288I wouldn't expect you to understand (it's not the National Enquirer, after all), but National Review is absolutely a "conservative source."
Quote:The online version, National Review Online, describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review
lol @ a liberal quoting me from Wiki. Who do you think you are?
Yes. Sources help one back up one's argument. Perhaps you should try that sometime.
Quote: ams288
Yes. Sources help one back up one's argument. Perhaps you should try that sometime.
Ams288, I AM a source. If someone asks you a question about this subject, you can confidently quote Bob Bartop. That should settle all arguments and put any question to rest. In this particular example, tell them Bob Bartop says "learn what a Trotskyite is, duh".
Quote: bobbartopAms288, I AM a source.
So are notes written on the door to bathroom stalls. The voices in your head is another great source of information.
Quote: TomGSo are notes written on the door to bathroom stalls. The voices in your head is another great source of information.
Big talk. But none of you have addressed the Trotskyite factor in the beginnings of National Review, instead only resorted to snarking and insulting me. I win. Stfd.
Quote: bobbartopBut none of you have addressed the Trotskyite factor in the beginnings of National Review
I doubt that there are a many people in the U.S. who even know who Trotsky was; outside of academia. Just as I doubt that there are many in Russia who know who Ulysses S. Grant was. Trotsky is about as relevant to U.S. politics today as is Bugs Bunny.
Quote: bobbartopBig talk. But none of you have addressed the Trotskyite factor in the beginnings of National Review, instead only resorted to snarking and insulting me. I win. Stfd.
When it comes to bickering and whining in internet chatrooms you are definitely the big winner
Quote: bobbartopBig talk. But none of you have addressed the Trotskyite factor in the beginnings of National Review, instead only resorted to snarking and insulting me. I win. Stfd.
WTF
I am aware of Trotsky
Somewhat of a history buff
BUT
so what
this is 2017 and Trump is President and the thread is about his 1st 100 days
WTF does ancient Trotsky have to do with anything
You win because you trot out some old historical figure that has absolutely nothing to do with Trumps 1st 100 days?
What are you smoking?
And do you have some more?
:-)
Quote: terapinedWTF
I am aware of Trotsky
Somewhat of a history buff
BUT
so what
this is 2017 and Trump is President and the thread is about his 1st 100 days
WTF does ancient Trotsky have to do with anything
You win because you trot out some old historical figure that has absolutely nothing to do with Trumps 1st 100 days?
What are you smoking?
And do you have some more?
:-)
If you'll scroll up/back a little you'll see that I merely tried to point out the distinction between a conservative and a neo-con. As usual, I base my opinion on fact. Though some here think that insulting me qualifies them as politically astute, it actually just exemplifies their political ignorance. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I have truth on my side and don't need no stinking links. The neo-con movement is based in Trotskyism, including William F. Buckley who was a false conservative, a saboteur, a Trotskyite. So you see? It was merely a small point I tried to make that didn't need to be turned into a lengthy mud-slinging event. All they had to do was look it up, see that I was right, and then announce that Bob Bartop is the king, Bob Bartop knows all, and that they feel embarrassed for even challenging me.
Quote: lilredroosterI doubt that there are a many people in the U.S. who even know who Trotsky was; outside of academia.
You doubt wrong. Ask any neo-con.
Quote: bobbartopBig talk. But none of you have addressed the Trotskyite factor in the beginnings
Okay, I took your bait which will be disappointing to many. Here, the National Review shoots down your claim. Here is there cut and paste:
"While it might be fun to wade deep into the weeds to demonstrate the ludicrousness of this assertion, let me just say that of the scores of famous neocons I’ve met, none of them have ever expressed any fondness for Trotsky. He’s never quoted as an authority in neocon op-eds or journals, and he’s never invoked — save in jokes — in neocon debates or conferences."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/206955
Wait, don't tell me let me guess. This source is wrong and your sources are right.
Quote: bobbartopAll they had to do was look it up, see that I was right, and then announce that Bob Bartop is the king, Bob Bartop knows all, and that they feel embarrassed for even challenging me.
Let us know when the number of people who believe this exceeds one
Quote: lilredroosterOkay, I took your bait which will be disappointing to many. Here, the National Review shoots down your claim. Here is there cut and paste:
"While it might be fun to wade deep into the weeds to demonstrate the ludicrousness of this assertion, let me just say that of the scores of famous neocons I’ve met, none of them have ever expressed any fondness for Trotsky. He’s never quoted as an authority in neocon op-eds or journals, and he’s never invoked — save in jokes — in neocon debates or conferences."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/206955
Wait, don't tell me let me guess. This source is wrong and your sources are right.
C'mon, Rooster. That's the fox guarding the hen house. I know I have to make an allowance for your 20-something status but geez, you're capable of better than that. Stop it. Just stop it. And go to your room.
Quote: TomGLet us know when the number of people who believe this exceeds one
Let us know when you simply google "neo-con" and "trotsky". After that, there is no requirement to return and apologize to me and tell me how great I am. Just lurking and keeping quiet will suffice. I'm not picky.
Quote: bobbartopC'mon, Rooster. you're capable of better than that.
Trotsky's main contribution to revolutionary theory:
"Permanent Revolution"
Permanent Revolution is the theory that the bourgeois democratic tasks in countries can only be accomplished through the establishment of a workers' state, and that the creation of a workers' state would inevitably involve inroads against capitalist property. It is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power. Their battle-cry must be: "The Permanent Revolution"
Didn't mention my source. What's the point. You'll just say it's biased. But it has no connection to the National Review. Doesn't sound like any neocon I ever heard flapping his gums. So now, go ahead and tell me that the neocons favor revolution "by any means necessary," and that they favor state power to be in the hands of workers. "Working men of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains." Sure, that's neocon talk. Sure it is. They really want McDonalds workers to have a lot of power don't they?
Quote: bobbartopJust lurking and keeping quiet will suffice.
You finally got something right. Now lets see how long it takes for you go against this and continue with your insufficient blabbering
Quote: lilredroosterTrotsky's main contribution to revolutionary theory:
"Permanent Revolution"
Permanent Revolution is the theory that the bourgeois democratic tasks in countries can only be accomplished through the establishment of a workers' state, and that the creation of a workers' state would inevitably involve inroads against capitalist property. It is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power. Their battle-cry must be: "The Permanent Revolution"
Didn't mention my source. What's the point. You'll just say it's biased. But it has no connection to the National Review. Doesn't sound like any neocon I ever heard flapping his gums. So now, go ahead and tell me that the neocons favor revolution "by any means necessary," and that they favor state power to be in the hands of workers. "Working men of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains." Sure, that's neocon talk. Sure it is. They really want McDonalds workers to have a lot of power don't they?
This was not meant to turn into a long-winded discussion. As far as I can surmise, you and terapined are the only ones in this discussion that display any semblance of objectivity. The others appear totally blind, for whatever reason. So there ya go. I'm giving you the scoop. Do with it what you want. Go with the blind men, or open your eyes. I'm off to play video poker. Cya.
Pretty damn funny though.
ABSOLUTELY ! ! ! Gotta watch it !Quote: RS
Pretty damn funny though.
14 million Americans will lose their health coverage next year. 24 million will lose it after 10 years.
Would this be a good time for me to go back through the election thread and find posts by righties pretending that Obamacare was a failure because it didn't cover enough Americans????
Schadenfreude....
Quote: ams288The CBO score for TrumpCare has been released and it's an all out disaster for Republicans.
14 million Americans will lose their health coverage next year. 24 million will lose it after 10 years.
Would this be a good time for me to go back through the election thread and find posts by righties pretending that Obamacare was a failure because it didn't cover enough Americans????
Schadenfreude....
I listened to the new Secretary of Health & Human Services say young healthy people will buy insurance without a mandate.
Of course if that was the case, they would have done that long before Obamacare was even enacted and if we had a problem with heath care it wouldn't be the size of the insurance pool we'd be worrying about, because that would have not ever been a problem.
So when the WH told us not to believe the CBO analysis this afternoon, maybe they meant because more Americans would lose coverage than even the CBO predicted?!
At what point do we stop debating whether Republicans are pure evil, and just start accepting it as fact???
I thought Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall?? He said that hundreds of times.
He couldn't have lied to us for votes, could he?
Quote: ams288At what point do we stop debating whether Republicans are pure evil, and just start accepting it as fact???
Seems relevant today after hearing about Donald's budget proposals.
Before Trump took office, there was a very realistic chance Geert Wilders, a Trump type, would win the election in the Netherlands. Today, he lost the election by 7 points. People were looking overseas and saw what it means to be governed by a Trump.
France is next and may have a similar result.
Trump may have saved Europe from the scourge of right-wing populism.
Quote: ams288Seems relevant today after hearing about Donald's budget proposals.
Love em, especially this:
Cutting the EPA’s Budget Could Save American Consumers and Businesses Hundred of Billions of Dollars
More Trump promises turning into reality.
