Trump's Final 100 days

Quote: MrV

I really do hope that Melania files for divorce against the donald.

How sweet it would be if she got a restraining order, most especially if she, like Elaine, went for the jugular.

Imagine the orange baboon being restrained from being within three hundred feet of his wife's residence (the alt.white house).

Ah, the stuff dreams are made of.

A former forum member is a carrigage trade divorce lawyer: maybe he'll get the call.

tick tick tick

If there was no Baron Trump it would have a high likelihood. I think she would give up her own personal goals to protect him. And by the time Baron is an adult DJT will be 80 or so. So I'd bet the "No" on a divorce.

I highly doubt that there is any truth to the Stormy Daniels story. That being said, there may be truth to DJT having some infidelities. Once a woman gets 20 or more years younger than a man in a relationship the less the woman takes affairs seriously. She herself is most likely a product of an affair.
She probably does not sleep with him every night anyway. DJT is not going to have someone in his life that is totally dependent. Melania has made her deal in advance. There will be no separation. Anyone who wants action on this, my book is open.

Quote: mcallister3200

Hypothetically, and I’m asking for a friend of course, would a 33 year old with above average income and no dependents be eligible for some of that free college?

I don’t know if there’d be an age limit or not, and it would depend how, “Above average,” the income is.

Ideally, you’d still want them to go shortly after high school.

Quote: petroglyph

I hope you know I was funning with you.

Would there be competition for drug prices?

Drug prices would be strictly regulated. That’s especially since the Government would effectively be purchasing a fair percentage of the drugs. Maybe 250% of cost, max.

Quote: bobbartop

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So you see, basic rights didn't come from Man, nor the Constitution. They came from our Creator. And that means that they ALWAYS existed. Even if someone is an atheist, their rights still came from the Creator. I hope that's not too heavy for you. I assume you went to college, so I realize this may be futile.

I think our rights came from Santa Clause. He gives the good little boys and girls who are on the nice list free stuff.

Quote: Mission146

Drug prices would be strictly regulated. That’s especially since the Government would effectively be purchasing a fair percentage of the drugs. Maybe 250% of cost, max.

Oh really? What is cost? I did research (I was paid) for a medical device that never made it to be a sellable product. For the sake of this discussion, let's say it was a drug. How does the company make up for the $50 million in costs in trying to develop THAT drug when you are limiting the profit on the NEXT drug they do successfully develop?
Are you also limiting my sushi restaurant to selling my eel rolls at 250% of cost?
Should you limit to 250% of cost the designer sunglasses which probably now sell for 2000% of cost?
So drug manufacturers are bad guys because they want to be capitalists?

So much more but I think I'd get suspended..........

Quote: RS

If someone chooses not to go to college so they can do something else more productive (to them), do they get a tax break on their "college taxes"?

It really depends on what the person’s income is. You’d still pay taxes based on your income, so those people would be less likely, at least, to have any of their money be going to college funding because they would be less likely to have any money going towards income taxes, in general. As you can research for yourself if you wish, but should be self-evident, non-collegiates make less, on average.

Quote:

Why do only the smarter people get to attend or stay in college (for free) while someone else who is dumb, but tries really hard, can't stay in college for free? Isn't the purpose of college to learn?

Because it makes no sense to put someone in there who is likely to fail. Additionally, I was just throwing out my idea for a guideline, maybe you would take C-average students. I know you’re not going to take D or F average students. The former barely made it through H.S. and the latter, theoretically, didn’t.

Quote:

If someone's income is through means not through a free-college degree, does that person still have to pay taxes towards the "free colleges tax plan"? Seems a bit backwards to have to pay taxes into something you not only do not use but do not want (and which is not necessary). I mean, the entire thought of it is just completely nuts to begin with.

Do I have to still pay a sales tax even though I’m the one buying something as opposed to selling it? Do I pay taxes that have gone into bridges that I may not personally use?

Nobody gets to specifically allocate where their tax money goes. Sonetimes it goes to something you use, sometimes it doesn’t. Sonetimes you agree with where it goes, sometimes you don’t. Some of my tax money may well go to building a stupid wall that I can assure you I’ll never personally use...Hell, I don’t even care if there are illegals in this country or not.

Quote: SOOPOO

Oh really? What is cost? I did research (I was paid) for a medical device that never made it to be a sellable product. For the sake of this discussion, let's say it was a drug. How does the company make up for the $50 million in costs in trying to develop THAT drug when you are limiting the profit on the NEXT drug they do successfully develop?
Are you also limiting my sushi restaurant to selling my eel rolls at 250% of cost?
Should you limit to 250% of cost the designer sunglasses which probably now sell for 2000% of cost?
So drug manufacturers are bad guys because they want to be capitalists?

So much more but I think I'd get suspended..........

Pfizer profits 3B per quarter, do you think that’s absolutely necessary?

Besides, you’re conflating direct costs with all costs. I’m not talking about 250% of the cost of the physical unit, that’d be silly. You have employees, R&D, an electric bill...the bottom line is just limiting their profits and somewhat limiting their markups.

By the way, can you identify the similarities and differences between sushi, designer sunglasses and life/death?

Quote: Mission146

Pfizer profits 3B per quarter, do you think that’s absolutely necessary?

Besides, you’re conflating direct costs with all costs. I’m not talking about 250% of the cost of the physical unit, that’d be silly. You have employees, R&D, an electric bill...the bottom line is just limiting their profits and somewhat limiting their markups.

By the way, can you identify the similarities and differences between sushi, designer sunglasses and life/death?

3B profit on 13B in revenue is a whole lot less than your spouted 250% allowable profit in your imagined utopia. Are you going to allow them only 10% in order for you to be the savior of humanity giving everyone a 15% discount?

I don't want all the smart people like SooPoo running to make sunglasses instead of keeping me alive on the operating table. There is a big difference between life/death and sunglasses. The difference is you have a choice to buy the generics or Gucci. Don't worry, if you are broke no one is going to let you die. You can still get life critical care at the ER.

You really need to expend some effort on figuring out how to get yourself a slice of the pie instead how to have a piece handed to you in the name of fairness. Take a look around, there isn't enough pie for everyone to have the same equal slice.

Look no further than the places our very own PokerGrinder is visiting. I damn sure don't want to be on par with that nonsense.

Quote: MaxPen

3B profit on 13B in revenue is a whole lot less than your spouted 250% allowable profit in your imagined utopia. Are you going to allow them only 10% in order for you to be the savior of humanity giving everyone a 15% discount?

Maybe we should, then we could have Government programs and University grants to continue to research Parkinson's and Alzheimer's since Pfizer doesn't want to do it anymore, despite the yuge Trump tax cut:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-pfizer-20180108-story.html

300 researchers getting canned in light of a tax cut, sounds like trickle-down economics to me. Good fun!

Quote:

I don't want all the smart people like SooPoo running to make sunglasses instead of keeping me alive on the operating table. There is a big difference between life/death and sunglasses. The difference is you have a choice to buy the generics or Gucci. Don't worry, if you are broke no one is going to let you die. You can still get life critical care at the ER.

You're not going to have any greatly increased demand for designer sunglasses such that they will need to employ any more people than they do now. Besides that, some people get into the medical industry with a motive of helping people rather than how much they can make, I would argue that most people do. Some of these people may well even benefit from not incurring any student loan debt for the first six years of their higher education.

Yeah, you can get life critical care, but that's about it.

Quote:

You really need to expend some effort on figuring out how to get yourself a slice of the pie instead how to have a piece handed to you in the name of fairness. Take a look around, there isn't enough pie for everyone to have the same equal slice.

Who are you talking to? At the income levels I have in mind, I would make too much to qualify for most of the things that I'm saying. I would have gotten out of college debt-free, I suppose, but that's about it. That really has more to do with my parents' income than mine.

As far as free basic/preventive/emergency care, you'd have access to that regardless of how much you make. You could choose to go to a for-profit hospital instead, obviously, but then that's a personal choice and you may have an insurance that covers that.

This is really what it comes down to for me. Apologies if this offends anyone:

Economic Rightists: Economic Rightists would like to limit the social safety nets we have as much as possible, if not get rid of them entirely. They (somehow) believe that everyone succeeds or fails financially based on their own merits, and would like to pretend...despite mountains of evidence to the contrary...that initial socio-economic conditions (i.e. upbringing) play no factor at all. They look at the ability of anyone to get free emergency care as a substitute for health care, even though the mere act of saving someone's life, in and of itself, isn't going to fix any underlying issues thereby making the person unhealthy.

In the meantime, these people often disregard college education as having any value, even though it is those with an education that make more money over the course of their lives...undeniable fact. More importantly, those people also tend to produce and innovate more, so ultimately, the entire thing pays for itself in the long run.

In any event, many assume that those with the ability should pay and those with the inability shouldn't go. Once again, this completely disregards initial socio-economic conditions completely. Further disregarded is the fact that an individual's initial socio-economic conditions have nothing whatsoever to do with that individual's personal or academic merit. To wit, that individual person, hasn't done anything yet he just has the means to do so by way of his parents.

When you talk about the funding for a free state institution, which is only free if the academic achievements are met and maintained, these institutions are still not going to meaningfully compete with schools like Harvard and Yale, nor will they be as well-funded. So, don't worry, even under my system, those with rich parents will still have an inherent advantage. We're just looking to close the disadvantage a little bit.

Ultimately, what we end up with is an Economic Rightist platform that props up those who are healthy, strong or otherwise have inherent advantages and disregards everyone else as freeloaders. This very same system ignores the fact that the, "Freeloaders," are often only that because they are not healthy, lack the means to become healthy, have not obtained higher education, lack the means to obtain higher education and are afraid of incurring the debt in an uncertain job market and are otherwise subject to less-than-comfortable living conditions.

So, the Rightist tosses them some housing programs and benefits that constitute, at best, the barest minimum possible standard of living...and then go on to complain that they're forced to even give them that much. Very Christian.

Economic Leftist: The opposite of everything above. Actually wants to give people an opportunity to live to their fullest potential. DOES NOT, believe it or not, want everyone on welfare, but would rather use Government-funded education and job training programs to get them off of the Government teat.

We don't want people to be unproductive, we want to give them the means to become productive and/or more productive. Which includes access to quality healthcare. Unlike the stated Rightist goal, we actually do want individuals to become supremely, moderately or minimally successful; alternatively to fail, on their own merits.

The funding that is so often mentioned RELIES on those very same people succeeding, so that the benefits of their success (i.e. money) can be returned to the system by way of the fact that they make enough to be taxed themselves.

BOTH SIDES: Both sides, ultimately, want to have a self-replicating society. The only thing that really differs is the way income, and the taxes derived therefrom, gets distributed in that society.

I'm down for removing tenure and decreasing the pay of Bolshevik supporting college professors. Maybe then you can afford to pay your own way with a part time job and very little debt. It worked as recently as the 80's. Education value has been destroyed by all the government meddling.

Quote: MaxPen

I'm down for removing tenure and decreasing the pay of Bolshevik supporting college professors. Maybe then you can afford to pay your own way with a part time job and very little debt. It worked as recently as the 80's. Education has been destroyed by the government meddling.

Much like income equality, if people could afford to pay their way through state college with a part-time job whilst incurring NO debt, I would have no complaints and would not be suggesting any changes to the system.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that a person should be expected to work part-time to get through college, that becomes especially true when the colleges themselves often have student-placement job programs such as campus security, monitoring the libraries, computer rooms, campus bookstore and stuff like that.

The biggest problem since the 80's is the considerable increases to tuitions and other expenses relative to what those part-time jobs actually pay. An alternative to direct funding via taxation is to more strictly regulate how much that stuff is even ALLOWED to cost at a public institution.

It's for that reason that I suggest that only tuitions should be free up to Master's level for state-funded institutions and those who academically qualify. If those people wish to live/eat on campus, then they either need to find a way to pay for it or take out loans. I suppose I should mention that the necessary academic implements (mostly books) would also be included as part of tuition, so no loans needed for those, although they would need to be returned at the end of a course if the current volume is still in use. Alternatively, the person could choose to purchase the book outright, if he or she chooses to do so.

I'm using this anecdotally, not complaining, but I had a full-time job throughout college, an additional part-time job sometimes, and still managed to come out of the affair with considerable debt. The institutions were also about as cheap as it gets, too. I had partial scholarships, even. I certainly have no problem with the amount of debt incurred by way of living/eating on campus, but then, I think that constitutes about 10-20% of the total debt. The other 80-90% was all tuition and books. I came out of high school with a Mid-A average (I think 3.7-3.75, something like that) and out of Community College with a high-A average (3.8-3.85, somewhere in there) and my parents were poor...so I don't see why a similarly-situated student shouldn't qualify for a better deal than that. I don't really care by what means that better deal is effectuated, just so there is one.

Quote: Mission146

I think our rights came from Santa Clause. He gives the good little boys and girls who are on the nice list free stuff.

If rights come from government, then government can take them away. If rights are unalienable, then they always exist, and cannot be taken away.

I learned that in grammar school. Did you skip that class?

Quote: Mission146

The biggest problem since the 80's is the considerable increases to tuitions and other expenses relative to what those part-time jobs actually pay. An alternative to direct funding via taxation is to more strictly regulate how much that stuff is even ALLOWED to cost at a public institution.

Nothing is free. Government meddling through subsidies and loan guarantees amongst other things have created the artificial market that so troubles you and you see as unfair.

The government is not capable of giving anyone anything that someone doesn't give them first. The government is the rake. The more people that take responsibility for dealing their own games the better off the whole community would be. Your support of government interference has allowed you to be put in the box you are so unhappy in.

Quote: Mission146

Pfizer profits 3B per quarter, do you think that’s absolutely necessary?

Besides, you’re conflating direct costs with all costs. I’m not talking about 250% of the cost of the physical unit, that’d be silly. You have employees, R&D, an electric bill...the bottom line is just limiting their profits and somewhat limiting their markups.

By the way, can you identify the similarities and differences between sushi, designer sunglasses and life/death?

Then have the government make the drugs, not a PRIVATE COMPANY!!! Are you actually implying that a sunglass company has MORE of a right to make a big profit than a drug manufacturer?
Evidence is clear that if you drive a Hummer you will survive an accident multiple times more likely than a Prius. Make Hummer makers make less profit so more can afford it. Evidence is clear if you eat fresh fruits and vegetables you will live longer than if you eat greasy and sugary foods. Make fresh foods less expensive by forcing those companies to make less profit. Evidence is clear that cigarettes are bad for you. Prevent those companies from making a profit at all!

You ACTUALLY think a company should be restricted as to how much profit they can make BECAUSE they make a product that is good for society? I think you need to take a step back and re-examine your basic concepts.

Quote: Mission146

It really depends on what the person’s income is. You’d still pay taxes based on your income, so those people would be less likely, at least, to have any of their money be going to college funding because they would be less likely to have any money going towards income taxes, in general. As you can research for yourself if you wish, but should be self-evident, non-collegiates make less, on average.

Let's say he went to a private university and not "government free-college" or he didn't go to college at all and is an entrepreneur and is making a bunch of money. Does that person have to pay taxes towards this "free college" BS even though he decided to go to a better university (paying once for a free sh** college and again for a good college)? Or does the other have to pay into this "free college hoax" even though he's making a substantial income without having attended this free college?

Do you envision this "free college" thing to be something that's available to EVERYONE (who has C+ or B+ or w/e grades)? Or is it only available to those who "qualify" (come from a family with less than X yearly income)?

Quote: Mission

Because it makes no sense to put someone in there who is likely to fail. Additionally, I was just throwing out my idea for a guideline, maybe you would take C-average students. I know you’re not going to take D or F average students. The former barely made it through H.S. and the latter, theoretically, didn’t.

So you're telling me people would have to pay taxes into a service they may not even be allowed to use?

Quote: Mission

Do I have to still pay a sales tax even though I’m the one buying something as opposed to selling it? Do I pay taxes that have gone into bridges that I may not personally use?

Nobody gets to specifically allocate where their tax money goes. Sonetimes it goes to something you use, sometimes it doesn’t. Sonetimes you agree with where it goes, sometimes you don’t. Some of my tax money may well go to building a stupid wall that I can assure you I’ll never personally use...Hell, I don’t even care if there are illegals in this country or not.

Just because that's how it is doesn't mean that's how it should be. It's an odd argument for you to say there are things you don't support (ie: wall), yet you want someone else to support something that we don't support.

Quote: Mission146

Pfizer profits 3B per quarter, do you think that’s absolutely necessary?

Besides, you’re conflating direct costs with all costs. I’m not talking about 250% of the cost of the physical unit, that’d be silly. You have employees, R&D, an electric bill...the bottom line is just limiting their profits and somewhat limiting their markups.

By the way, can you identify the similarities and differences between sushi, designer sunglasses and life/death?

Is this for real? At this point it seems like everything's a joke, but, here's me hoping otherwise....

Quote: MaxPen

Nothing is free. Government meddling through subsidies and loan guarantees amongst other things have created the artificial market that so troubles you and you see as unfair.

The government is not capable of giving anyone anything that someone doesn't give them first. The government is the rake. The more people that take responsibility for dealing their own games the better off the whole community would be. Your support of government interference has allowed you to be put in the box you are so unhappy in.

Heh, the government is the rake. Good one! lol


"In the poker game of life, women are the rake."
-- Worm, Rounders, 1998

A government that is powerful enough to give you everything, is also powerful enough to take everything you have away.

If there is a universal military draft in America, with very few exceptions, than everyone can serve their country and come out the other side with free education and medical for life. Easy peasy.

As it stands now with private army's, none of us know's how much each contractor is charging [Blackwater] per enemy killed or soldier wounded. No idea at all. What used to be "grunt pay" is now into 6 figures, and we can't find out what is going on through FOIA requests.

The 4-10 trillion spent since 01, bombing Islamic country's would pay for a whole lot of medical care, stateside. just sayin

What gov is powerful enough to give me errthing? Y'all trollin

Quote: bobbartop

If rights come from government, then government can take them away. If rights are unalienable, then they always exist, and cannot be taken away.

I learned that in grammar school. Did you skip that class?

There are no absolutes. Did you miss that in Philosophy 100?

By the way, while they mean the same, the Declaration of Independence uses, “Inalienable rights.” I guess you missed that in seventh grade Social Studies.

Quote: MaxPen

Nothing is free. Government meddling through subsidies and loan guarantees amongst other things have created the artificial market that so troubles you and you see as unfair.

I imagine you intend to prove that statement. You’re basically arguing that costs have gone up because an institution with a vested interest in keeping costs low has caused that to happen.

The less the cost of the education, the less you need to subsidize. That’s really not hard.

Quote:

The government is not capable of giving anyone anything that someone doesn't give them first. The government is the rake. The more people that take responsibility for dealing their own games the better off the whole community would be. Your support of government interference has allowed you to be put in the box you are so unhappy in.

Really? Maybe make a time machine and go back to 1830 and tell the slaves that. You know, before the Government decided slavery should be abolished.

Quote: SOOPOO

Then have the government make the drugs, not a PRIVATE COMPANY!!! Are you actually implying that a sunglass company has MORE of a right to make a big profit than a drug manufacturer?

I’m fine with that, and yes, in that order.

Sunglasses are a non-essential luxury item, they can charge and profit whatever they want with absolutely no need for any strict regulation. Massive profits shouldn’t be made on the desire to remain alive and healthy...a significantly greater portion of those would-be profits should go to R&D as well as education funding.

Quote:

Evidence is clear that if you drive a Hummer you will survive an accident multiple times more likely than a Prius. Make Hummer makers make less profit so more can afford it. Evidence is clear if you eat fresh fruits and vegetables you will live longer than if you eat greasy and sugary foods. Make fresh foods less expensive by forcing those companies to make less profit. Evidence is clear that cigarettes are bad for you. Prevent those companies from making a profit at all!

Would you put driving ahead of living healthy as a basic human need? I don’t. I’m not even arguing everyone should have a car if they want one.

Cigarettes are a choice, they’re already restricted from advertising, in many ways,

Fresh foods actually can be cheaper as opposed to packaged foods, provided one shops intelligently.

Quote:

You ACTUALLY think a company should be restricted as to how much profit they can make BECAUSE they make a product that is good for society? I think you need to take a step back and re-examine your basic concepts.

Yes, billions of dollars in quarterly profits and a total salary of 23.28 million for the CEO. How altruistic of them. Please forgive me.

Quote: RS

Let's say he went to a private university and not "government free-college" or he didn't go to college at all and is an entrepreneur and is making a bunch of money. Does that person have to pay taxes towards this "free college" BS even though he decided to go to a better university (paying once for a free sh** college and again for a good college)? Or does the other have to pay into this "free college hoax" even though he's making a substantial income without having attended this free college?

What is difficult about the concept that people do not get to directly allocate where their tax dollars go? Even poor people pay taxes, mostly sales taxes, they don’t get to say where that goes. If you make enough money, you pay taxes and you don’t have any direct input where those taxes go.

If you advocate for no taxes whatsoever, then you advocate for anarchy. That’s fine. As with anything else, meritorious arguments can be made in favor of Anarchy.

Just not Republicanism, mostly because almost all of them have at least one view directly contradicting another one they claim to hold. Much like Christians. Of course, if a person is one, he or she is often both. As soon as one view contradicts another, one fails to have a meritorious argument because the overall argument becomes inconsistent.

Quote:

Do you envision this "free college" thing to be something that's available to EVERYONE (who has C+ or B+ or w/e grades)? Or is it only available to those who "qualify" (come from a family with less than X yearly income)?

If it’s coming directly from taxation, much like public school, anyone who wants to go and qualifies can go.

Quote:

So you're telling me people would have to pay taxes into a service they may not even be allowed to use?

That already happens. I’m not allowed to use food stamps because I make too much to qualify for them.

Quote:

Just because that's how it is doesn't mean that's how it should be. It's an odd argument for you to say there are things you don't support (ie: wall), yet you want someone else to support something that we don't support.

I can support or not support whatever I want to. It just seems that I’m the only one who doesn’t harbor the delusion that what I personally want or don’t want actually matters.

Quote: RogerKint

What gov is powerful enough to give me errthing? Y'all trollin

Somebody made it up, and blamed it on a dead guy? "https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-big-enough-give-you-everything-you-wantspurious-quotation"

It does kind of sound like BS, don't it?

I just admire how this thread stays OT so well.

Quote: Mission146

It just seems that I’m the only one who doesn’t harbor the delusion that what I personally want or don’t want actually matters.

Nah, I been married to, your not alone.

Kids will really expose the illusion for what it is. Your lucky if it even matters to you.

Quote: Mission146

It just seems that I’m the only one who doesn’t harbor the delusion that what I personally want or don’t want actually matters.

The reason that what we personally want matters more. Some choices have to be left to the individual. The only way out is a clear conscience.

Quote: petroglyph

I just admire how this thread stays OT so well.

Well, in that case, why aren't more people worried about whether Trump is on the up and up and demand he release his tax returns?

Some that voted for him seem to be more worried about paying for some kid's education than how responsible the leader of our country has been.

That audit is taking a long time.

Quote: Mission146

I imagine you intend to prove that statement. You’re basically arguing that costs have gone up because an institution with a vested interest in keeping costs low has caused that to happen.

The less the cost of the education, the less you need to subsidize. That’s really not hard.

What institution has a vested interest in keeping costs low? You're not talking about the government, are you?

The cost of education would be the same, regardless of who pays for it. The difference is how much it costs a specific person, not everyone as a whole. IE: One person can pay $1M into something or 1M people can pay $1 into something, the cost is still the same.

Quote: Mission

Really? Maybe make a time machine and go back to 1830 and tell the slaves that. You know, before the Government decided slavery should be abolished.

Freedom isn't "a thing" that is given by a government. The government can't give someone money, food, housing, education, etc. for free without taxing (or taking) something from someone else. The government doesn't have anything, it simply takes from one person and gives to another. "Free stuff" doesn't just magically appear.

Quote: RS

Freedom isn't "a thing" that is given by a government. The government can't give someone money, food, housing, education, etc. for free without taxing (or taking) something from someone else. The government doesn't have anything, it simply takes from one person and gives to another. "Free stuff" doesn't just magically appear.

I thought my use of the word, "Tax," would be sufficient to imply that I already know what is above.

Freedom, in that case, was a thing that was given to them by the Government, though. First of all, objectively speaking, the Government did indeed give it to them. Secondly, it drove up the cost of labor namely because you no longer had slaves...you theoretically had to pay them something...so that's indirect taxation, if nothing else. For example, when minimum wage goes up, aside from the increase in payroll taxes on the difference...the wages themselves are an indirect form of taxation to the extent that the Government is telling employers, "You must pay people at least $X.xx."

It's not really called a tax, but that's what it is, only indirect. Either way, the Government is stepping in and reallocating money.

Quote: Mission146

By the way, while they mean the same, the Declaration of Independence uses, “Inalienable rights.” I guess you missed that in seventh grade Social Studies.

Obama used "unalienable" in his 2013 Inaugural Address. He hoped and changed it.

Quote: bobbartop

Obama used "unalienable" in his 2013 Inaugural Address. He hoped and changed it.

I certainly preferred Obama over either of the alternatives in both election years, but he can't change what the Declaration of Independence says. I'm not entirely sure I actually voted for Obama either time, though. I didn't vote for Clinton, either. Gary Johnson. None of the candidates were particularly close to my views, but he was closest, besides, I like him.

Quote: Mission146

I certainly preferred Obama over either of the alternatives in both election years,

I'd have never guessed.

Quote: Mission146

but he can't change what the Declaration of Independence says.

He didn't. At least not the final signed copy he didn't, written on parchment and housed at the Department of State, which reads "unalienable". Maybe Donna Brazile changed it.

Quote: Mission146

I'm not entirely sure I actually voted for Obama either time, though.

Sounds like the election process is very important to you.

Quote: bobbartop

I'd have never guessed.

For what it's worth, I really did consider Romney there for awhile. I thought he had a few good ideas. Never thought about McCain for a second. I voted for Bush the second time, wasn't old enough to vote the first time...but I'd have went Gore.

Quote:

Sounds like the election process is very important to you.

You know less than nothing about my opinion of the election process. For one thing, you'd probably be surprised that I'm actually in favor of voter ID laws, since you probably assume that I would automatically gravitate towards any leftist position automatically.

No, the reason I don't quite remember is because I didn't particularly like him or any other candidate that year. Certainly not McCain. Besides that, I'd worked a 16-hour shift the day before, worked a sixteen hour shift on election day, and was sick with a fever of well over 100. Still got my ass down there and voted. Got my ass to work, too. I may well have filled in the rest of the ballot and just didn't make a selection for POTUS.

It's not that it wasn't important, it's just even more important when I'm not sick and don't think all of the candidates suck. I could tell you who I voted for on just about anything else without pausing...just don't remember whether I went Obama, wrote someone in or left it blank.

One sentence.

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes,
OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart
—you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if,
like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the
smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a
conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's
why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went
there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my
like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but
you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would
have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear
is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the
power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of
what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?),
but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it
used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I
would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because,
you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter
right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about
another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Quote: billryan

One sentence.

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes,
OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart
—you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if,
like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the
smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a
conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's
why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went
there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my
like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but
you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would
have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear
is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the
power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of
what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?),
but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it
used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I
would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because,
you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter
right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about
another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Lol why do i hear donald trumps voice saying that

They should make a board game where the object is to rearrange Donald Trump’s sentences to form coherent thoughts.

Much like Monopoly, it could last hours. One key difference is that nobody would be able to win.

Most people talk like that. It sounds fine aurally but when it's put to text, it looks ridiculous. Although I think DJT is a bit more extreme in that sense when he talks than most people.

Quote: RS

Most people talk like that. It sounds fine aurally but when it's put to text, it looks ridiculous. Although I think DJT is a bit more extreme in that sense when he talks than most people.

What? Who? I come from one of the least educated states in the country and almost nobody speaks that poorly.

Quote: RS

Most people talk like that. It sounds fine aurally but when it's put to text, it looks ridiculous. Although I think DJT is a bit more extreme in that sense when he talks than most people.

It's how a BS artist speaks. And Trump does it well. My gf's cousin speaks in a similar manner. He is an undiagnosed pathological liar. I never fully believe any story he tells me. If anyone questions the details of his story, he will quickly change the subject.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: RS

Most people talk like that. It sounds fine aurally but when it's put to text, it looks ridiculous. Although I think DJT is a bit more extreme in that sense when he talks than most people.

What? Who? I come from one of the least educated states in the country and almost nobody speaks that poorly.

It's tough to hear because we're used to hearing people talk poorly. Most have a lot of "uhh"s" or "umm"s when they talk. Oftentimes it's a bit garbled and wouldn't seem coherent if written. I'm subscribed to a private newsletter thingie (it's not all that fancy, but private so I won't show the contents), but the guy has videos and also has a transcript of the video. The video seems fairly normal, but reading the transcript you'd think the guy is retarded or something like that.

Put the words to paper and you'll see a lot of stuff like, "Well then, okay, um, well here you have, okay, so you see over here, this is how, uhh..." instead of, "If you look over here, you'll see..."

Obama's responses were well thought out, but if you put them to paper, you would have alot of "uhhss" in them.

Trump likes to stammer and yammer. I don't hold that trait against him. Just everything else he does.

It's usually his twitter responses that raise the most eyebrows. I know he says he doesn't drink or do crack, but maybe he sniffs gold dust and the stuff causes his neural activity to malfunction. Either that or he's ordered someone to tweet every random muttering he makes while sleeping thinking he's some kind of "stable genius".

Quote: Mission146

For what it's worth, I really did consider Romney there for awhile. I thought he had a few good ideas. Never thought about McCain for a second. I voted for Bush the second time, wasn't old enough to vote the first time...but I'd have went Gore.



You know less than nothing about my opinion of the election process. For one thing, you'd probably be surprised that I'm actually in favor of voter ID laws, since you probably assume that I would automatically gravitate towards any leftist position automatically.

No, the reason I don't quite remember is because I didn't particularly like him or any other candidate that year. Certainly not McCain. Besides that, I'd worked a 16-hour shift the day before, worked a sixteen hour shift on election day, and was sick with a fever of well over 100. Still got my ass down there and voted. Got my ass to work, too. I may well have filled in the rest of the ballot and just didn't make a selection for POTUS.

It's not that it wasn't important, it's just even more important when I'm not sick and don't think all of the candidates suck. I could tell you who I voted for on just about anything else without pausing...just don't remember whether I went Obama, wrote someone in or left it blank.

Obama, Romney, Gore, Bush, Voter Id.

I get it.

Quote: SOOPOO

So much more but I think I'd get suspended..........

I thought you had biased mod protection?

Quote: AxelWolf

I thought you had biased mod protection?

Nope. I believe I've been suspended twice. Both by Mike.

They did a skit on the Grammys last night where they had celebrities read excerpts from Fire & Fury. And the last one was Hillary, reading the part about how Donald fears being poisoned so he eats a lot of fast food.

It got under Don Jr.'s skin, as evidenced by his tweets about it last night.

But I'm waiting for the big man to wake up and send out some hate tweets about it this morning...

Quote: ams288

They did a skit on the Grammys last night where they had celebrities read excerpts from Fire & Fury. And the last one was Hillary, reading the part about how Donald fears being poisoned so he eats a lot of fast food.

It got under Don Jr.'s skin, as evidenced by his tweets about it last night.

But I'm waiting for the big man to wake up and send out some hate tweets about it this morning...

Great show! It was nice to see an awards show bringing back half dressed women as exploited eye candy and no constant pushing of the #metoo stuff.

Quote: RS

It's tough to hear because we're used to hearing people talk poorly. Most have a lot of "uhh"s" or "umm"s when they talk. Oftentimes it's a bit garbled and wouldn't seem coherent if written. I'm subscribed to a private newsletter thingie (it's not all that fancy, but private so I won't show the contents), but the guy has videos and also has a transcript of the video. The video seems fairly normal, but reading the transcript you'd think the guy is retarded or something like that.

Put the words to paper and you'll see a lot of stuff like, "Well then, okay, um, well here you have, okay, so you see over here, this is how, uhh..." instead of, "If you look over here, you'll see..."

How come I hear it when Trump does it as opposed to when these, "Most people," do? I agree that many people throw out, "Umm," and, "Uhh," myself included...though I like to think to less of an extent because I go out of my way to try to avoid that. I've never heard anybody jump from thought to thought the way Trump does when it comes to seemingly disconnected subjects. It's like he wants you to assume ten words for every three he speaks, but you have to hear the whole entire rambling and incoherent mess to even glean what the subject might be.

There's nothing, in my opinion, that is normal about the way he speaks. There is nothing about his speech pattern that affects any intelligence, aurally or otherwise, in my opinion. It's just a jumbled mishmash of seemingly unrelated words that sounds awful AND looks awful in writing.

While many people I encounter are not great public speakers, the only ones worse than Trump who I have encountered are clinically retarded. Not saying Trump is, he must be fairly intelligent to get where he is and accomplish what he has. Just saying he sounds clinically retarded. It looks like it came from a clinically retarded person when you read it.