Perhaps the most important Trump analysis yet.

[cpwill]

You are certainly a legend in your own mind, someone who cannot admit they are wrong on any subject which makes you a liberal

:lol: No, I've admitted where I was wrong before . Nor does inability to do so make you either liberal or conservative. It simply makes you prideful.

The issue is logic and common sense

Indeed it is. Between two big-government liberal authoritarians, both of whom would be disasters, conservatives should choose neither.

which apparently you don't have as you don't get it. We are less safe today than we were 7 years ago and a mistake was made in putting Obama in the WH

And you want to triple down on that with someone who matches Obama's utter lack of experience and knowledge with the impulse control of a two year old and a penchant for conspiracy theories?

Yeah - great plan. The fact that Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster is not a good reason for voting for someone who is likely to be just as bad if not worse.

Now because of your so called principles and lack of logic and common sense you would make the same mistake over again by giving us 4 more years of an unqualified candidate with zero leadership skills and no foreign policy or economic successes.

Nope. I want neither of these atrocities. That's one of those "basic logic and common sense" things I've had to tell you multiple times, but which still seems too complex for you.

 

[haymarket]

I take total responsibility for my votes over that period of time

1.7 trillion in debt for Reagan
1.4 trillion in debt for GHW Bush
4.9 trillion in debt for GW Bush

8.0 trillion in 20 years vs. 1.4 trillion in debt for Clinton and 8.6 trillion for Obama in 15 years

Thank you for those numbers. Since you have such a command of the facts, could you please post how each of these INCREASED the debt from where it was when that President entered office by PERCENTAGE so we can see a fuller and more complete picture of that debt?

In other words, did these numbers increase the debt by 10% or by 38% or by 167%?

Thank you in advance for helping to illuminate them finds of curious citizens.

 

[Conservative]

:lol: No, I've admitted where I was wrong before .



Indeed it is. Between two big-government liberal authoritarians, both of whom would be disasters, conservatives should choose neither.



And you want to triple down on that with someone who matches Obama's utter lack of experience and knowledge with the impulse control of a two year old and a penchant for conspiracy theories?

Yeah - great plan. The fact that Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster is not a good reason for voting for someone who is likely to be just as bad if not worse.



Nope. I want neither of these atrocities. That's one of those "basic logic and common sense" things I've had to tell you multiple times, but which still seems too complex for you.

Choosing neither isn't an option as not voting or voting a third party is a vote for Hillary because there are more stupid Liberals than stupid Conservatives. The choice is very simple but you want to look for that perfect candidate. What makes your two choices a better candidate and why does that even matter today as neither has a chance to win

Yes, Obama's foreign policy is indeed a reason to change because without national security nothing else matters.

As for basic logic and common sense, please show some, The math just doesn't work for you nor does basic civics. No matter who runs over 40% of the people in this country are going to vote for a D and 25% a R regardless of the candidate. With that math how does a third party candidate win? Then if a third party gets in the WH and has to deal with a R and D Congress how does that third party win? Ventura showed it didn't work in Minnesota and there is no example that I can find where a third party candidate wins anything other than the office.

I don't like Trump but I like him a lot more than Hillary and prefer someone with executive and leadership skills over someone who is nothing more than an opportunist and
incompetent.

 

[Conservative]

Thank you for those numbers. Since you have such a command of the facts, could you please post how each of these INCREASED the debt from where it was when that President entered office by PERCENTAGE so we can see a fuller and more complete picture of that debt?

In other words, did these numbers increase the debt by 10% or by 38% or by 167%?

Thank you in advance for helping to illuminate them finds of curious citizens.

Interesting how you want to use percentage change and ignore debt service. Percentage change means nothing except in the liberal world where taking the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion(52% of GDP) is worse than taking the debt up from 10.6 trillion(70%)oif GDP to 19.2 trillion(over 100% of GDP). Is that your logic?

I can see how curious you are because I would love to hear the debt service on 1.7 trillion debt vs. 8.6 trillion because that is what matters. Why do you use percentage change only on issues you believe make your point? Why not percentage change of GDP growth as well?

 

[haymarket]

Interesting how you want to use percentage change and ignore debt service. Percentage change means nothing except in the liberal world where taking the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion(52% of GDP) is worse than taking the debt up from 10.6 trillion(70%)oif GDP to 19.2 trillion(over 100% of GDP). Is that your logic?

I can see how curious you are because I would love to hear the debt service on 1.7 trillion debt vs. 8.6 trillion because that is what matters. Why do you use percentage change only on issues you believe make your point? Why not percentage change of GDP growth as well?

thank you for your reply. Sadly, the numbers I requested from you were not in your reply. Could you please provide what I asked for?

Thank you.

 

[cpwill]

Choosing neither isn't an option

Well, no - that is an option. It's just not the one I'm going to take.

not voting or voting a third party is a vote for Hillary because there are more stupid Liberals than stupid Conservatives.

....no.

Firstly, not voting for Trump is not a vote for Hillary unless you actually vote for Hillary. Voting for a third party is only a vote for a third party. Nor does voting for third party detract a vote from Trump because I was never going to vote for Trump in the first place. The GOP does not "own" my vote, they are not "entitled" to my support. They have to earn it. :shrug: this time, they didn't.

Secondly, Liberals are no more likely to be stupid than Conservatives. Witness: The GOP Primary. Stupidity is universal.

Thirdly - even if they were, that would not in any way mean that a vote for a third party was a vote for Hillary. It would only mean that one was voting for a third party, instead of a big-government liberal authoritarian.

The choice is very simple but you want to look for that perfect candidate.

:shrug: no, I don't. I want a good candidate, and will take a minimally acceptable candidate. 17 Republicans ran, I had disagreements with all of them, and could have supported 15 of them. A plurality of the GOP electorate instead chose one of the remaining two, so :shrug:

What makes your two choices a better candidate and why does that even matter today as neither has a chance to win

They both have chances to win. They are simply unlikely to win. In this they are similar to Trump, whom you are voting for. (Again) if you want to appeal to the ideal that we should seek to vote for the winner, then you need to switch your support to Hillary.

Yes, Obama's foreign policy is indeed a reason to change because without national security nothing else matters.

Not to something worse.

As for basic logic and common sense, please show some, The math just doesn't work for you nor does basic civics.

:shrug: I've laid out how they both do. You've relied on the unproven claim that there are more stupid liberals than conservatives, as though that somehow made an argument for you.

No matter who runs over 40% of the people in this country are going to vote for a D and 25% a R regardless of the candidate.

Currently the RCP Average is that ~44.1% will be voting for Hillary, and ~38.3% will be voting for Trump. Hillary, however, is still struggling to wrap up her nomination, and so has a bump coming. Trump is just now starting to realize that the media that built him up in the primary is going to have a field day tearing him down.

Hillary is an awful candidate, and would make an awful president. And the GOP chose the only person who could be just as bad or worse. Well done, GOP.

With that math how does a third party candidate win?

(Again), if you vote based on the principle that you want to vote for the winner, then you need to be #WithHer, as she has the edge.

I don't like Trump but I like him a lot more than Hillary

See, I don't like Trump and I don't like Hillary, and I don't see them as all that different, except that she's more corrupt, and he's more insane.

and prefer someone with executive and leadership skills over someone who is nothing more than an opportunist and incompetent.

Well then you're **** out of luck, because both major candidates are incompetent opportunists, and the only ticket with executive and leadership skills is (of all people) the Libertarians, who are running a couple of former GOP Governors.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I'm not proposing that we take away the Constitutional rights of those on it, so, no.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Which specific constitutional protections are you citing? Lets discuss the merits. The 14th? One of my least favorite of our amendments, as it is often used/abused for things it was never intended and never intended to be intended. An amendment of extremely questionable legitimate constitutional lineage.

Be that as it may, the 14th states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,”... and I have no problem with henceforth disallowing, by law, those on a watch-list from obtaining such weaponry legally. If you are forbidding someone from in the future obtaining property, you are not depriving them of life, or liberty or property, would you agree? We can, especially, put restrictions on those non-citizens that come to this country as a privilege, it is certainly not a right to do so... most importantly a denial to those who might do us harm.

The Second Amendment perhaps? Our second is all about the Security of a Free State, the people our second amendment describes are our people, We, the people as described in the preamble. The American people and our security.

Agreed that laws are not going to stop these folks of potentially bad intent from obtaining a gun illegally... but such types of purchases are then under more potential LE scrutiny, justifiably heightened monitoring.

At the very least we should be discussing, having this as a national debate... not just blanket acceptance of the Obama then Clinton approval letting any unvetted refugee into our country with all the rights afforded to potential enemies that we give our lawful citizens, we have no true Constitutional obligation to do that.

 

[cpwill]

Which specific constitutional protections are you citing?

I'm stating that we shouldn't take away the Constitutional Rights of American citizens because a random government bureaucrat says so. You seem fine with that. If that's how you'd rather be ruled, then I'm afraid that you won't be very happy here, and recommend looking into moving to China, or Cuba, or perhaps a country that will be a better fit for you.

Lets discuss the merits. The 14th? One of my least favorite of our amendments

It doesn't ****ing matter if you like it or not. It's the Constitution. You don't get to pick and choose the pieces you like, any more than you, Trump, or any of the other liberals get to decide to toss the 2nd Amendment, The 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the 6th Amendment. Conservatives understand this.

Be that as it may, the 14th states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,”... and I have no problem with henceforth disallowing, by law, those on a watch-list from obtaining such weaponry legally

......

....

..

.....


I repeat my call for forbidding anyone who cannot pass the US Citizenship exam from being allowed to vote. You can't strip Constitutional Rights by statute.

The Second Amendment perhaps? Our second is all about the Security of a Free State, the people our second amendment describes are our people, We, the people as described in the preamble. The American people and our security.

Yeah. And for that security, we are each allowed to be armed. And the government isn't allowed to say that anyone who gets put into a database can have that right stripped from them without due process. And no, passing a law is not due process for stripping people's rights. That's why we have a Judiciary.

At the very least we should be discussing, having this as a national debate...

No we shouldn't. That we are having this debate indicates that half the country (or more) doesn't give two ****s about the Constitution or individual rights and doesn't understand the issues at hand. Stupid ass debates like this where uninformed Americans are easily swayed by demagogues is precisely why we have a Constitution in the first place.

 

[cpwill]

and I call BS on that

Continue to observe:

Which specific constitutional protections are you citing? Lets discuss the merits. The 14th? One of my least favorite of our amendments, as it is often used/abused for things it was never intended and never intended to be intended. An amendment of extremely questionable legitimate constitutional lineage.

Be that as it may, the 14th states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,”... and I have no problem with henceforth disallowing, by law, those on a watch-list from obtaining such weaponry legally. If you are forbidding someone from in the future obtaining property, you are not depriving them of life, or liberty or property, would you agree? We can, especially, put restrictions on those non-citizens that come to this country as a privilege, it is certainly not a right to do so... most importantly a denial to those who might do us harm.

The Second Amendment perhaps? Our second is all about the Security of a Free State, the people our second amendment describes are our people, We, the people as described in the preamble. The American people and our security.

Agreed that laws are not going to stop these folks of potentially bad intent from obtaining a gun illegally... but such types of purchases are then under more potential LE scrutiny, justifiably heightened monitoring.

At the very least we should be discussing, having this as a national debate... not just blanket acceptance of the Obama then Clinton approval letting any unvetted refugee into our country with all the rights afforded to potential enemies that we give our lawful citizens, we have no true Constitutional obligation to do that.

 

[Conservative]

thank you for your reply. Sadly, the numbers I requested from you were not in your reply. Could you please provide what I asked for?

Thank you.

I did provide what you asked for but apparently you are too partisan and biased to understand the response. Reagan took over a debt of 900 billion and increased it 1.7 trillion dollars which is a 300% increase which you want to make a big deal out of and by ignoring context. If someone came to you and said I have a problem that will create 17 million jobs, almost double GDP, create a 60% growth in FIT revenue, and create a peace dividend but would cost 1.7 trillion dollars would you do it?

Then I would ask you, if someone came to you and said I have a program that would grow GDP 2%, increase employment by 9 million, grow FIT revenue than 15% but would cost 8.6 trillion dollars would you do it? Now what exactly is the question again?

Is it your contention that growing the debt 1.7 trillion, 52% of GDP is worse than growing the debt 8.6 trillion over 100% of GDP because it grows debt 300% vs. 90%?

 

[Conservative]

Well, no - that is an option. It's just not the one I'm going to take.



....no.

Firstly, not voting for Trump is not a vote for Hillary unless you actually vote for Hillary. Voting for a third party is only a vote for a third party. Nor does voting for third party detract a vote from Trump because I was never going to vote for Trump in the first place. The GOP does not "own" my vote, they are not "entitled" to my support. They have to earn it. :shrug: this time, they didn't.

Secondly, Liberals are no more likely to be stupid than Conservatives. Witness: The GOP Primary. Stupidity is universal.

Thirdly - even if they were, that would not in any way mean that a vote for a third party was a vote for Hillary. It would only mean that one was voting for a third party, instead of a big-government liberal authoritarian.



:shrug: no, I don't. I want a good candidate, and will take a minimally acceptable candidate. 17 Republicans ran, I had disagreements with all of them, and could have supported 15 of them. A plurality of the GOP electorate instead chose one of the remaining two, so :shrug:



They both have chances to win. They are simply unlikely to win. In this they are similar to Trump, whom you are voting for. (Again) if you want to appeal to the ideal that we should seek to vote for the winner, then you need to switch your support to Hillary.



Not to something worse.



:shrug: I've laid out how they both do. You've relied on the unproven claim that there are more stupid liberals than conservatives, as though that somehow made an argument for you.



Currently the RCP Average is that ~44.1% will be voting for Hillary, and ~38.3% will be voting for Trump. Hillary, however, is still struggling to wrap up her nomination, and so has a bump coming. Trump is just now starting to realize that the media that built him up in the primary is going to have a field day tearing him down.

Hillary is an awful candidate, and would make an awful president. And the GOP chose the only person who could be just as bad or worse. Well done, GOP.



(Again), if you vote based on the principle that you want to vote for the winner, then you need to be #WithHer, as she has the edge.



See, I don't like Trump and I don't like Hillary, and I don't see them as all that different, except that she's more corrupt, and he's more insane.



Well then you're **** out of luck, because both major candidates are incompetent opportunists, and the only ticket with executive and leadership skills is (of all people) the Libertarians, who are running a couple of former GOP Governors.

Stop acting like a liberal or change your lean. wordsmithing is what the left does and what you are doing in this thread. Of course voting for a third party isn't voting for Hillary but the results are the same. You put Hillary in the WH which apparently is less of an issue with you than putting Trump there because that is exactly what a vote for a third party does as I explained in the math

What exactly would Trump do that makes our foreign policy worse? Are you one of those who wants to be liked and that trumps peace through strength?

Your problem is your principles don't allow you to see through your own biases. Trump has the leadership and management experience that neither Obama or Hillary had or have. They are not the same even with some similarities and I will vote for Trump not that it matters in TX as Hillary will lose this state by 3 million votes

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

:lol: says the guy who had to cut out the entire point of that post, which his where I linked for you ad nauseum how Trump was guilty of everything you were trying to use to build a case against Hillary.

I predicted you'd respond with a "See No Evil" approach, and that Conservative would "like" it. it's always good to be right.

You've been here long enough to know, or should know, that my more than adequate and detailed response required I remove much of yours so I could fit it all in... your links were mostly questionable and you know that, or again, you should know that.

 

[cpwill]

Stop acting like a liberal or change your lean.

:lol: I'm not the one trying to justify voting for someone who wants to raise the minimum wage, institute universal healthcare, increase taxes, withdraw from our alliances, restrict gun rights, restrict first amendment rights, etc. That would be you . Having an issue with projection?

Of course voting for a third party isn't voting for Hillary but the results are the same.

:shrug: the results are the same regardless of how I vote. Hillary has the edge over Trump, and will probably take the White House.

You put Hillary in the WH

No, I don't. Her voters put her there. If you want to argue that a portion of the GOP put up a particularly weak defense, allowing a flawed Democrat candidate a victory she shouldn't have gotten, then you are free to take that up with the Trump Primary voters, who had it explained to them multiple times that their candidate would lose in the General, and who decided that they didn't care.

which apparently is less of an issue with you than putting Trump there

I don't want either of them there. They are both atrocious.

because that is exactly what a vote for a third party does as I explained in the math

No, you didn't. You simply made the claim that Democrats had 40% of the vote while Republicans had 25 (I put in the correct numbers for you by citing the RCP averages), and then you made the claim that there were more stupid Democrats than stupid Republicans. Sadly, were that the case, then Donald Trump would not be the GOP nominee.

What exactly would Trump do that makes our foreign policy worse?

Start Trade Wars. Suck up to our enemies while abandoning our allies even more than the current administration has done (when, that is, he can even identify them) in between casually threatening to destabilize their regions.

Are you one of those who wants to be liked and that trumps peace through strength?

Nope. I'd like to be liked, but you have to have strength defending peace - interestingly enough, having the strength to defend peace is usually what makes you most reliably liked in many of the problem areas of the world, where no one wants to be associated with the weak. I have been one of the most consistent defenders on this board of a global, forward-deployed US defensive posture precisely because I believe in peace through strength - precisely because I've read my Hobbes. And, precisely because I favor American strength undergirding a peaceful world order, I oppose morons like Obama and Trump coming along and blowing it all up because they don't know what they're doing.

Your problem is your principles don't allow you to see through your own biases. Trump has the leadership and management experience that neither Obama or Hillary had or have.

No he doesn't. He doesn't even know the relevant players, authorities, or restrictions. He thought Judges signed bills, didn't know what the nuclear triad was, and is easily seduced by our enemies. He matches the ignorance and incompetence of Obama with the impulse control of my son when he was three. He thought "leadership" was ordering US Troops to hunt down and murder women and children.

They are not the same even with some similarities and I will vote for Trump not that it matters in TX as Hillary will lose this state by 3 million votes

Yeah. Funny how you say that, then you insist that other people's individual votes somehow do matter. :roll:

 

[cpwill]

You've been here long enough to know, or should know, that my more than adequate and detailed response required I remove much of yours so I could fit it all in... your links were mostly questionable and you know that, or again, you should know that.

:lol: my links all demonstrated that Trump is guilty of everything you wished to accuse Hillary of, and you didn't want to deal with that. that's why you deleted them.

 

[Conservative]

cpwill;1065975559]:lol: I'm not the one trying to justify voting for someone who wants to raise the minimum wage, institute universal healthcare, increase taxes, withdraw from our alliances, restrict gun rights, restrict first amendment rights, etc. That would be you . Having an issue with projection?

No, you are the one ignoring basic math and what your vote for a third party will do. As for the rest of your rant basic civics is ignored as well as total context of the comments made

:shrug: the results are the same regardless of how I vote. Hillary has the edge over Trump, and will probably take the White House.

No, the results aren't going to be the same unless you can foresee the future which I know you cannot. Trump has the leadership skills that Hillary never had or never will have. Only the truly ignorant entitlement crown loves Hillary

No, I don't. Her voters put her there. If you want to argue that a portion of the GOP put up a particularly weak defense, allowing a flawed Democrat candidate a victory she shouldn't have gotten, then you are free to take that up with the Trump Primary voters, who had it explained to them multiple times that their candidate would lose in the General, and who decided that they didn't care

.

Yes, just like with Perot who put Clinton in the WH. Stop wordsmithing. A vote for the third party takes away a vote for one of the major candidates and has been explained to you using basic math assures the Democrats the WH and 4 more years of social engineering and foreign policy disasters. Isn't it time to put America FIRST again?

I don't want either of them there. They are both atrocious.

Agreed, however the lessor of the two is Trump and you are going to get one of those two. I prefer Trump

No, you didn't. You simply made the claim that Democrats had 40% of the vote while Republicans had 25 (I put in the correct numbers for you by citing the RCP averages), and then you made the claim that there were more stupid Democrats than stupid Republicans. Sadly, were that the case, then Donald Trump would not be the GOP nominee.

Refute the basic math of Democrat and Republican voters? Surely you are smart enough to see that there isn't enough support for a third party YET to make a difference

 

[Conservative]

:lol: my links all demonstrated that Trump is guilty of everything you wished to accuse Hillary of, and you didn't want to deal with that. that's why you deleted them.

Will you please cite for us where Trump was ever in position to do what Hillary has already done? Yours is speculation based upon rhetoric. what you are doing is what liberals do, buying the rhetoric and ignoring the substance

 

[cpwill]

Will you please cite for us where Trump was ever in position to do what Hillary has already done?

Serial lying? Check.

Corruption? Check.

Bad for our allies? Check.

Good for our enemies? Check.

Bad for our economy? Check.

Incompetent? Check, Check, Check.

 

[Conservative]

Serial lying? Check.

Corruption? Check.

Bad for our allies? Check.

Good for our enemies? Check.

Bad for our economy? Check.

Incompetent? Check, Check, Check.

Oh, Good Lord, Trump isn't a politician, Trump has never held political office, and none of those so called lies many of which can be explained haven't cost the US taxpayers or our national security at all. You want badly to believe any article that supposedly supports your point of view whatever that is and all those so called lies are trumped by Hillary's ACTUAL Actions!!!

Stop being a liberal by projecting instead of thinking. What exactly has Trump DONE that has cost this country anything. Rhetoric is not action and actual action by Hillary is FACT

 

[cpwill]

Oh, Good Lord, Trump isn't a politician, Trump has never held political office, and none of those so called lies many of which can be explained haven't cost the US taxpayers or our national security at all. You want badly to believe any article that supposedly supports your point of view whatever that is and all those so called lies are trumped by Hillary's ACTUAL Actions!!!

Stop being a liberal by projecting instead of thinking. What exactly has Trump DONE that has cost this country anything. Rhetoric is not action and actual action by Hillary is FACT

:lol: yeah. You're the one defending and supporting a platform of higher taxes, higher minimum wages, universal healthcare, growing the size and scope of government, but I'm the lefty who's projecting.

okedoke. You just keep on telling yourself that. I'll be the guy over here, laughing at you.


I accept, however, your implicit admission that Trump is all those things that I linked. If "hasn't been near political power before" is your yardstick, I suggest you vote for a write-in candidate.


But it's not. It's just another desperate measure that you'll flail around and try to grasp to come up with a justification to vote for Trump.

none of those so called lies many of which can be explained

Okedoke. Lets' go through a few. Trump accused Ted Cruz's father of being involved in the JFK assassination. Please explain.

 

[Conservative]

:lol: yeah. You're the one defending and supporting a platform of higher taxes, higher minimum wages, universal healthcare, growing the size and scope of government, but I'm the lefty who's projecting.

okedoke. You just keep on telling yourself that. I'll be the guy over here, laughing at you.


I accept, however, your implicit admission that Trump is all those things that I linked. If "hasn't been near political power before" is your yardstick, I suggest you vote for a write-in candidate.


But it's not. It's just another desperate measure that you'll flail around and try to grasp to come up with a justification to vote for Trump.






Okedoke. Lets' go through a few. Trump accused Ted Cruz's father of being involved in the JFK assassination. Please explain.

Wrong, the only thing I am defending is the fact that your vote for a third party puts Hillary in the WH with all her warts. All you have on Trump is rhetoric and that rhetoric in some areas including foreign trade and national security which to me are the most important issues trumps Hillary's actual actions.

You seem to put much more emphasis on what someone says vs. what someone else has DONE. How liberal of you. Unlike you I prefer to fight from within vs. being on the outside and wasting my vote on a write in or third party candidate. Logic and common sense rule in my world whereas emotion rules in yours

 

[cpwill]

none of those so called lies many of which can be explained

This might even be interesting to watch. Okedoke.

March 30: Trump claims MSNBC edited their released version of his interview with Chris Matthews in which Trump stumbled on abortion: “You really ought to hear the whole thing. I mean, this is a long convoluted question. This was a long discussion, and they just cut it out. And, frankly, it was extremely — it was really convoluted.” Nope; that was a lie.

March 17: Trump on Fox News denied that he ever accused President George W. Bush of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “I didn’t say lie. I said he may have lied.” That’s false. Trump said in February that Bush “lied.”

March 8: Lying about how much was spent in one week against him: “So many horrible, horrible things said about me in one week. $38 million worth of horrible lies.” According to The Tracking Firm, every Republican dollar spent by Trump’s opponents on TV and radio from March 1 through 7 amounted to $10.57 million, and not all of it was directed against Trump.

November 23: Trump claimed 81 percent of murdered white people are killed by black people. The truth? 84 percent of murdered white people are murdered by other white people. Trump cited the “Crime Statistics Bureau—San Francisco,” which doesn’t exist except in the mind of a white supremacist on Twitter.​

I mean, I'm just kinda picking random ones here

September 30: “The state of Florida had sanctuary cities while Jeb Bush was governor. Nobody said anything.” According to a report from the Congressional Research Service issued in August 2006, when Bush was governor, there were 32 cities and counties nationwide that had “sanctuary policies.” None of those on the list is in Florida.

December 2: Claimed he had predicted Osama bin Laden’s ascension in his book The America We Deserve, blustering, "I said in that book that we better be careful with this guy named Osama bin Laden. I mean I really study this stuff … And now people are seeing that, they’re saying, “You know, Trump predicted Osama bin Laden.” The America We Deserve makes one reference to bin Laden. It doesn’t write “we better be careful with this guy named Osama bin Laden,” or that the U.S. “better take him out.” All Trump wrote was this: “One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”​

Etc. so on and so forth. The guy is a serial liar.


But I'll let you start with claiming that Ted Cruz' father was part of the JFK assassination.

 

[cpwill]

Wrong, the only thing I am defending is the fact that your vote for a third party puts Hillary in the WH with all her warts.

No, you are trying to defend and support a platform of raising taxes, increasing the size and scope of government, raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, and a slew of other liberal positions. That's the guy you are arguing for in this thread.

No, it doesn't. The only thing that puts Hillary in the White House is 270 votes in the Electoral College, which she only gets if enough people in enough states vote for her. Me voting for someone else A) isn't a vote for Hillary to get an electoral college vote and B) isn't going to change my states' electoral position.

And, of course, C) If not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary, then by the same logic not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump (you can bet your britches she'll be trying to sell that line to Bernie supporters). So there you go - there's your vote for Trump .

All you have on Trump is rhetoric and that rhetoric in some areas including foreign trade and national security which to me are the most important issues trumps Hillary's actual actions.

:shrug: Trump and Hillary pursue the same policy. If your argument is that Hillary has been in a government position before, and that's what you are basing your vote on, then you need to vote for someone whose been even further removed from power than the political-machine-participant at the top of the GOP ticket.

You seem to put much more emphasis on what someone says vs. what someone else has DONE.

Not really. A) I've linked for you what Trump has done (you've ignored it) and B) When you are running for President, establishing and running on a policy platform is what you do.

Unlike you I prefer to fight from within vs. being on the outside

:lol: inside of what? You want to be part of the next administration? Go join the Hillary campaign staff - that's where they are going to be drawn from.

and wasting my vote on a write in or third party candidate.

Actually I'm more likely to have influence voting for a third party candidate.

Logic and common sense rule in my world whereas emotion rules in yours

No - tribalism rules in your world. You are a "Republican", and you've decided that's more important than being a "Conservative". If "Republican" now means big-government liberal :shrug: alrighty, you're for it.




But hey, I can't help but notice that you claimed that Trump's lies could be explained, but then failed to explain the whole Ted-Cruz-Dad-Was-Connected-To-The-JFK-Assassination thing?

 

[Conservative]

This might even be interesting to watch. Okedoke.

March 30: Trump claims MSNBC edited their released version of his interview with Chris Matthews in which Trump stumbled on abortion: “You really ought to hear the whole thing. I mean, this is a long convoluted question. This was a long discussion, and they just cut it out. And, frankly, it was extremely — it was really convoluted.” Nope; that was a lie.

March 17: Trump on Fox News denied that he ever accused President George W. Bush of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “I didn’t say lie. I said he may have lied.” That’s false. Trump said in February that Bush “lied.”

March 8: Lying about how much was spent in one week against him: “So many horrible, horrible things said about me in one week. $38 million worth of horrible lies.” According to The Tracking Firm, every Republican dollar spent by Trump’s opponents on TV and radio from March 1 through 7 amounted to $10.57 million, and not all of it was directed against Trump.

November 23: Trump claimed 81 percent of murdered white people are killed by black people. The truth? 84 percent of murdered white people are murdered by other white people. Trump cited the “Crime Statistics Bureau—San Francisco,” which doesn’t exist except in the mind of a white supremacist on Twitter.​

I mean, I'm just kinda picking random ones here

September 30: “The state of Florida had sanctuary cities while Jeb Bush was governor. Nobody said anything.” According to a report from the Congressional Research Service issued in August 2006, when Bush was governor, there were 32 cities and counties nationwide that had “sanctuary policies.” None of those on the list is in Florida.

December 2: Claimed he had predicted Osama bin Laden’s ascension in his book The America We Deserve, blustering, "I said in that book that we better be careful with this guy named Osama bin Laden. I mean I really study this stuff … And now people are seeing that, they’re saying, “You know, Trump predicted Osama bin Laden.” The America We Deserve makes one reference to bin Laden. It doesn’t write “we better be careful with this guy named Osama bin Laden,” or that the U.S. “better take him out.” All Trump wrote was this: “One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”​

Etc. so on and so forth. The guy is a serial liar.


But I'll let you start with claiming that Ted Cruz' father was part of the JFK assassination.

Again, national security is the issue for me not rhetoric. Without national security there is no economic growth

You claim there is no difference between Hillary and Trump but there is, Hillary has a public record, Trump doesn't

Keep posting Trump rhetoric while ignoring Hillary's actual results

http://www.martinoauthor.com/hillary-clintons-failures/

 

[cpwill]

Again, national security is the issue for me not rhetoric. Without national security there is no economic growth

You claim there is no difference between Hillary and Trump but there is, Hillary has a public record, Trump doesn't

Ah. So you can't explain his lies. When you claimed that they could be explained what you meant was, not by you, because you can't, because he's a serial liar.

Keep posting Trump rhetoric while ignoring Hillary's actual results

Hillary Clinton's Failures - Stephen Martino

I don't ignore either. Both are atrocious, totally unfit to be President of the United States, and shouldn't be trusted with the power of public dog-catcher.

 

[Conservative]

Ah. So you can't explain his lies. When you claimed that they could be explained what you meant was, not by you, because you can't, because he's a serial liar.



I don't ignore either. Both are atrocious, totally unfit to be President of the United States, and shouldn't be trusted with the power of public dog-catcher.

Lies are words maybe misspoken, maybe on purpose but words never harmed anyone whereas actions do. I prefer someone with actual business experience than someone with a lot of positions held and nothing positive in terms of accomplishments.

IMO it is time to return power back to the states and local governments as well as take money away from people around the world who do not change their attitude towards terrorism. I support Trumps immigration policy completely, believe his business experience will trump the rhetoric spewed as will working with the second EQUAL branch of Govt, the Congress something Obama has refused to do and I don't expect Hillary to do