Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by smallcoffee, Oct 22, 2016.
Depends how much money they dump into the Clinton Foundation. Once they put in X million they get a seal of approval from the monarchy.
Time Warner is Hillary's ninth largest backer. Anything they want, she wants.
It's amazing that as this race wraps up, the Republican nominee is effectively an old style Democrat and the Democratic nominee is even further to the right than a Bush Republican. And the fake liberals want the Bush Republican.
What a time to be alive.
How old style Democrat are we talking? 1950? Because today's Democratic Party would never put forth a candidate that thinks global climate change is a hoax, that taxes on business should be cut while increasing expenses on things like military, infrastructure and hiring of a new deportation force and who mocks disabled and women. Just wouldn't happen.
Kennedy wanted to cut taxes far more than Trump whilst at the same time substantially expanding spending on healthcare and education.
FYI the U.S. already has a deportation force. It's called Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Okay...so then like a 1960's democrat then. I was off by a decade. But you are off by a half century.
Oh I am well aware of that. Is Trump? He has suggested in previous comments that it would be a new force. Why I don't know. It makes no sense to me either. He says a lot of random **** that is hard to follow or make sense of sometimes.
It says in your quote that it'd be a specialist force within ICE after tripling the number of ICE agents, not a new agency.
Anyway, we're off the topic. Hillary is totally bought and paid for by Time Warner (which owns CNN). She'll do nothing on the issue of media concentration.
Competition is a good thing therefore buyouts must be bad.
Either way it is a hiring of new people. More people in ICE. More soldiers. More military hardware. More infrastructure. All with less tax revenue from both businesses and individuals. It's unsustainable.
Did you hear his speech today? He squashes that global climate hoax idea. His plan is to stop giving billions to global climate groups and use the money to restore America's environment. As an outdoorsman, I am happy to hear this. The damage done to our environment was done decades ago, while new regulations have curtailed it, we don't do enough to restore it.
Mocks women and disabled, paleaase! Context context context.
--- Post Merged, Oct 22, 2016 ---
What if you had more business? Wouldn't overall tax revenues go up? Wouldn't government dependency go down? reducing the need to have the tax money in the first place.
--- Post Merged, Oct 22, 2016 ---
Yes I heard it. Is America not part of earth's environment? I didn't realize the country was in space orbiting the earth and thus has it's own separate ecosystem. Climate change is not a hoax.
Sure if trickle down economics worked. But it doesn't.
His point of view is that other nations do not participate in the restoration so why should we give money to only get small progress. Use the money ourselves to restore us and make big progress here.
You want to label his economic plan as trickle down because you have bought in that trickle down is a bad thing. True there are similarities, find me a plan that couldn't be compared but his plan is much more than trickle down. Protectionism would be a better label.
Which countries aren't participating in tackling climate change?
Because to my mind the number one offender is the United States.
The notion that other's aren't doing anything so let's sit on our hands and not do anything either is a weak and poor argument. Would we also take that same stance if an asteroid was hurtling towards Earth? "Eh, no one else is helping...just let it hit us. That'll show them!"
It's called being a leader. We have the resources and the brainpower to lead the charge and start to fix things. Or we can just let the planet turn to crap. Which version would you like to leave your kids and future generations?
I want to label it that because that's what it is. And it is a bad thing. Trickle down helps mostly the wealthy and adds to the deficit when things can't be paid for because the promised replacement revenue never arrives.
Asteroids? I see what I am working with here.
Yet when the same thing happened with major corporations in the 2000s when Bush was in office and there was the same outcry, your lot shrugged and said, "Hey! Free Market Enterprise!"
How quickly your lot sacrifice its integrity on this, as Free Market Enterprise is exactly what is happening here, yet your lot isn't happy with it.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
How about you stick to the discussion and leave personal attacks out of things? Or is your position so weak that personal attacks are all you have left?
It's means you are unwilling to concede a singular piece of anything I've posted or look at the positive possibilities. That is not a discussion, that is a lecture and I don't feel like being lectured by a closed minded person.
1960s Democrats were mostly Dixie Democrats. You'll want to travel back in time further than that to get a true Democrat. The Democratic Party has had its share of vile people for many decades now. Secondly, how does Trump figure into this? Maybe appoint a crony to the DoJ or put pressure on the DoJ to stop the acquisition? Who knows, but the reality of it is it's the FCC and FTC who figure into all of this. The DoJ only steps in when things get out of hand.
Trump's business dealings speak volumes of his natural or otherwise artificially gained skills, yet this man has the temerity to make promises he'll never keep, not because he's some one-hit politician now, but because he can't. This is a 70 year old man who lashed out at the last debate and behaved the same way my nephews did when they were four and were having a temper tantrum. For a man who knows so little of how our government works, he's got some big balls by making incredible promises he'll never be able to keep.
This is like '84 again. The results of the last 30 years are ATT's middle-finger to the federal government.
Not that I am expert on the telecom/entertainment business, this sounds like quite the monopoly that would form. I'm not into monopolies.
Says the closed minded person letcturing me. Oh the irony. What have you conceded?
And it's not a discussion because you aren't refuting any of my points. If you think trickle down works, show me an example. If you think climate change is a hoax, cite your references and prove it. Don't just lob personal attacks at someone.
u seen one president, u seen others...
Says the fella who owns Hollywood, the free press and the banks!
And you can't name the countries that aren't taking climate seriously.
Never been to China eh?