Donald Trump running for president

[justhere4comm]

Lol. Trump is still a pile of ****.

 

[ax1]

Lol. Trump is still a pile of ****.

Regardless if Prezidump Dump is selected as #1 or #45 on that list by political scientists and historians who clearly show no ethical integrity, Dump is still a evil mumpsimus mooncalf.

 

[justhere4comm]

To me he will always take last place.

 

[thebigt]

To me he will always take last place.

6 more years

 

[rob112]

I'm aware. Indeed, this is one of the exact surveys I was referring to in my initial comment. Again, I'm just trying to find the point you're trying to make.

You’ll never find it.

 

[rob112]

Looks like we might be bringing troops home. That’s a plus. I personally think 18 years is enough time to get a feel for things over there.

 

[ax1]

6 more years

Don’t push it less than 5.5 buddy :$

 

[ax1]

Looks like we might be bringing troops home. That’s a plus. I personally think 18 years is enough time to get a feel for things over there.

Yeah right, says who? ROFL!!!!!!

I watched the debate last night. They asked what I thought was the most important question of the night which was on foreign policy and only 3 or 4 candidates got to briefly answer and there was no debate about it, they rushed to the next question. Being that the military industrial complex covers most of the US economy and a huge chunk of the entire global economy, I thought they should have covered it quite a bit more than any other topic if not more than half the entire debate but that whole puppet show was rigged anyways.

 

[ax1]

We are never leaving Afghanistan, the US government makes too much damn money on the poppy trade to leave. Thats the only reason we invaded in the first place. If they officially leave they can take their terminology of "leaving" and stick it cause I know we are never ever leaving unless this country economically collapses and the empire if forced to retreat.

 

[rob112]

Yeah right, says who? ROFL!!!!!!

I watched the debate last night. They asked what I thought was the most important question of the night which was on foreign policy and only 3 or 4 candidates got to briefly answer and there was no debate about it, they rushed to the next question. Being that the military industrial complex covers most of the US economy and a huge chunk of the entire global economy, I thought they should have covered it quite a bit more than any other topic if not more than half the entire debate but that whole puppet show was rigged anyways.

View attachment 185329

The headlines were odd as it said that we came to an agreement with the Taliban to bring thousands home or something like that.

I know we will never go down to just defense based military. Getting involved in the world is what made this country as strong as it is. I would love us to go to just defense based spending/action.

Also why did the democrats trash Obama...they afraid Biden will be the most popular? I only heard snippets, so might not have the full picture.

 

[ax1]

The headlines were odd as it said that we came to an agreement with the Taliban to bring thousands home or something like that.

I know we will never go down to just defense based military. Getting involved in the world is what made this country as strong as it is. I would love us to go to just defense based spending/action.

Also why did the democrats trash Obama...they afraid Biden will be the most popular? I only heard snippets, so might not have the full picture.

They will keep tax payer funded private contractors there to do all the all the Pentagon's dirty work and pretend we left for ceremonial purposes. If they arent wearing a uniform they are not really there.

They do allow Biden probably the most air time, Id be shocked if CiaNN isnt trying to prop him up as the front runner just as the Wikileak documents showed they tried to prop up Hitlery. So I think some thats a possibility why. Id be suprised if CiaNN didnt feed Biden the debate questions prior to the event.

 

[ax1]

So Andrew Yang's solution to the prison population is to hand out everybody money before they become criminals, ROFL!!!!!!

He later claimed that everybody at the age of 18 and up should get free basic universal income. Yeah right, like thats going to prevent people from becoming criminals as the price of everything in this country is going to skyrocket to make up for high taxes and inflation.

He then had the nerve to claim during the debate that he is rounding up Libertarian support.

So I looked into him and he wants to give every Americana $12,000 a year and all you have to do is vote for him.

The Freedom Dividend, Defined - Yang2020 - Andrew Yang for President

What is the Freeom Dividend? The 20 top questions asked about Universal Basic Income. How do we pay for it? Will people still work? Why give people money?

www.yang2020.com

Ill tell ya all what, Im giong to run on $13,000 a year and a free Obamaphone every 2 years for life! Just vote for me!!!!!!!

 

[ax1]

What would you guys all do with an extra $1,000 a month?

I would just hand it over back at the government to help offset the money the government steals from me every year as a self proprietor. Signing that personal check to Uncle Sam will be slightly less devestating now that Mr. Yang will give me money to give back to him.

 

[nostrum420]

So Andrew Yang's solution to the prison population is to hand out everybody money before they become criminals, ROFL!!!!!!

He later claimed that everybody at the age of 18 and up should get free basic universal income. Yeah right, like thats going to prevent people from becoming criminals as the price of everything in this country is going to skyrocket to make up for high taxes and inflation.

He then had the nerve to claim during the debate that he is rounding up Libertarian support.

So I looked into him and he wants to give every Americana $12,000 a year and all you have to do is vote for him.

The Freedom Dividend, Defined - Yang2020 - Andrew Yang for President

What is the Freeom Dividend? The 20 top questions asked about Universal Basic Income. How do we pay for it? Will people still work? Why give people money?

www.yang2020.com

Ill tell ya all what, Im giong to run on $13,000 a year and a free Obamaphone every 2 years for life! Just vote for me!!!!!!!

Actually some libertarians have been talking about UBI for a while.

The Libertarian Case for Universal Basic Income

Sun Woo Leee argues lada dgasdg asdg asdga

stanfordsphere.com

The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income

Guaranteeing a minimum income to the poor is better than our current system of welfare, Zwolinski argues. And it can be justified by libertarian principles.

www.libertarianism.org

Redirecting to https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

www.cato-unbound.org

This "taxation is theft" quasi-anarchist stuff is relatively new. When I was a lad it was "income tax is theft." but they recognized various use taxes as legitimate like gas taxes going toward funding roadways.

 

[ax1]

Actually some libertarians have been talking about UBI for a while.

The Libertarian Case for Universal Basic Income

Sun Woo Leee argues lada dgasdg asdg asdga

stanfordsphere.com

The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income

Guaranteeing a minimum income to the poor is better than our current system of welfare, Zwolinski argues. And it can be justified by libertarian principles.

www.libertarianism.org

Redirecting to https://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

www.cato-unbound.org

This "taxation is theft" quasi-anarchist stuff is relatively new. When I was a lad it was "income tax is theft." but they recognized various use taxes as legitimate like gas taxes going toward funding roadways.

Personally Im a political athiest and "Libertarian" is just a slogan thats slapped around and people have their own definitions of what that really is and their own compromises just like any other political party. Also, cap it off with various infiltration from both political opposition and special interests as a whole the L Party is corrupted just as Demicans and Republicrats although not quite to that extent. I did make the vague statement so I am corrected, I was judging based on my own views of what a Libertarian should be and compromise.

There are many ways to pay for bridges, some would argue that the income tax is the most demeaning of all the taxes and economics on paying for infrastructure can be funded in various ways either through sales tax or other means including privatization. Its complicated but no need to punish productive behavior directly, that I have moral issues with.

If you want to fund UBI and do it by withdrawing all our troops shutting down the 800 military bases, stop the financing of private contractors and all interventionist war mongering policies without decreasing my income tax Id vote yes today. We would still probably have enough funds to repair the country too, build Dumps stupid crappy wall and still have the most powerful military in the world.

Interesting articles btw, started reading it and will go back to it now.

 

[ax1]

Cant believe this slipped by me,

Anyways, Nice Job Preizident Dump!! Makr Merica Great Again!!! RRRRrrrrrRRrrr

Darth Vader aka Cheney is so proud of you!

6 more years! 6 more years 6 years of mass murder and genocide, they will all love you and Merica all because we liberated them all from life!!!!!!!!

More civilians are being killed by Afghan and international forces this year than by the Taliban and other militants

The report found that of the 1,366 killed, 717 were killed by US-led and pro-Kabul forces -- a 31 per cent increase from the corresponding period in 2018. 577 of these deaths were attributed to the international coalition (314) and Afghan national security forces (263), while 88 were attributed to undetermined or multiple pro-government forces and a further 52 to pro-government armed groups.

By comparison, 531 people were killed by the Taliban, ISIS and other militant groups during the same six months. 306 of these deaths were caused by attacks that directly targeted civilians.

More civilians are being killed by Afghan and international forces than by the Taliban and other militants - CNN

More civilians in Afghanistan were killed by Afghan and international coalition forces than by the Taliban and other militant groups in the first half of 2019, a UN mission to the country said Tuesday.

www.cnn.com

 

[Power-Lift]

Civilians dying in other countries has zero to do w/ a US President.
I know millennials and libtards are pretty much brain dead, don't follow the noise.
He does nothing that Ghey Bathhouse Barry or Pervert Clinton has done, they are all the same (politicians) people who fight over it (like the bully libtards who attack old-men in MAGA hats) are just retarded. My buddy Glen is 6' 7" 275 juiced up DEA agent (Reps w/ 440 on bench). When he wears his MAGA hat on weekends, he's surprisingly (not) left alone. There's plenty wrong with Trump (like all loser Prez's) plenty wrong w/ Pubtards, but a back and forth thread about political arguing on a Iron-Game related website, is pretty embarrassing. Im grew up in 70's and 80's, way better times, today is insane thanks to SJW's and Social Media. Everyones an expert (AKA Retard).

 

[justhere4comm]

Hey. But at least DT promised he would cure AIDS and Childhood Cancer in two weeks.

 

[ax1]

Civilians dying in other countries has zero to do w/ a US President.
I know millennials and libtards are pretty much brain dead, don't follow the noise.
He does nothing that Ghey Bathhouse Barry or Pervert Clinton has done, they are all the same (politicians) people who fight over it (like the bully libtards who attack old-men in MAGA hats) are just retarded. My buddy Glen is 6' 7" 275 juiced up DEA agent (Reps w/ 440 on bench). When he wears his MAGA hat on weekends, he's surprisingly (not) left alone. There's plenty wrong with Trump (like all loser Prez's) plenty wrong w/ Pubtards, but a back and forth thread about political arguing on a Iron-Game related website, is pretty embarrassing. Im grew up in 70's and 80's, way better times, today is insane thanks to SJW's and Social Media. Everyones an expert (AKA Retard).

Good so pile Dump, Hitlery and Barry over in Guantanamo Bay for war crimes.

There is no difference between any of them, they are all genocidal lunatics who primarily support most of the same policies across the board.

What Barry Hussein Sotoro and Hitlery Clitorouson did doesnt justify the mass murder Dump continues to support.

 

[ax1]

Hey. But at least DT promised he would cure AIDS and Childhood Cancer in two weeks.

Remember he promised to be the one to end the Isreali Palestinie conflict?? I ROFFFLLL'd when I heard him say that.

Then he promised us income tax reform and simplify it down to a single sheet of paper, or post card. That sounded great but his nose expanded as he was promising his supporters that.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Political scientists and historians both tend to rank Reagan as one of our nation's best presidents, and that isn't from Republican cherry-picking.

If you only read one history book, sure. Other political scientists and historians may mention the war on drugs, Iran-Contra, voodoo economics, facilitating the spread of HIV/AIDs, etc.

 

[jimbuick]

If you only read one history book, sure. Other political scientists and historians may mention the war on drugs, Iran-Contra, voodoo economics, facilitating the spread of HIV/AIDs, etc.

The polls have already been posted. You should try looking at them.

 

[ax1]

The polls have already been posted. You should try looking at them.

You also have to consider how the polls were implemented, who, where, what, how, and can we have a meta-analysis.

Most importantly, why haven't any of these pollsters asked me?

 

[ax1]

If you only read one history book, sure. Other political scientists and historians may mention the war on drugs, Iran-Contra, voodoo economics, facilitating the spread of HIV/AIDs, etc.

But at least Reagan financed, armed and trained our ally Osama-bin-CIAden to help tear that wall down and contributed to population control in the middle east by arming both Saddam Hussein and Iranians to blow one another up.

 

[rob112]

Unless I missed it Jim’s main point is you get different results from different polls. Just saying he was horrible because of one poll is just as short sighted as saying he was the best from one other.

I have never polled in either sense of the word

 

[jimbuick]

You also have to consider how the polls were implemented, who, where, what, how, and can we have a meta-analysis.

Most importantly, why haven't any of these pollsters asked me?

Because they polled "historians and other professional observers of the presidency, drawn from a database of C-SPAN's programming, augmented by suggestions from the academic advisors."

All the methodology is available in the link I gave, by the way.

 

[ax1]

Because they polled "historians and other professional observers of the presidency, drawn from a database of C-SPAN's programming, augmented by suggestions from the academic advisors."

All the methodology is available in the link I gave, by the way.

Oh I see, https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=participants

Thats a pretty tiny portion of historians and political scientists. Less than 100 people were involved with the survey. You can make up a poll with dramatically different results. The people running and financing the survey should also be accounted for just as looking us research on supplements.

Im not blowing your poll off here, dont misunderstand me its still a legitimate poll of credible historians that I would account for.

 

[jimbuick]

Unless I missed it Jim’s main point is you get different results from different polls. Just saying he was horrible because of one poll is just as short sighted as saying he was the best from one other.

I have never polled in either sense of the word

That and that even across different polls Reagan is considered one of our best Presidents, not one of the worst.

The placing changes some (as you note) but the general consensus is that he is one of the better Presidents in US history, even with his flaws.

The pol. sci. poll posted (which had a polling group that skewed Democratic, with 57% being Democrats while only 13% were Republicans) ranked him at 9. The C-SPAN professional historians poll has him at 8 in the most recent, with his lowest ranking in previous polls being 11. Professional historians also tend to skew Democratic, but I don't believe respondents had to declare their political affiliations for C-SPAN.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Oh I see, https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=participants

Thats a pretty tiny portion of historians and political scientists. Less than 100 people were involved with the survey. You can make up a poll with dramatically different results. The people running and financing the survey should also be accounted for just as looking us research on supplements.

Im not blowing your poll off here, dont misunderstand me its still a legitimate poll of credible historians that I would account for.

Plus the survey isn't even on who the best President was, but I'm the one apparently who needs to read it lmao

 

[jimbuick]

Plus the survey isn't even on who the best President was, but I'm the one apparently who needs to read it lmao

Each expert rated every President's performance across the same categories of Presidential leadership and then those results were compiled to rank the Presidents by their scores.

I'm interested in what you think it is if not a comparative ranking of professionals' evaluation of Presidential performance.

Or I guess we could just go by the famed "Aleksandar37 ranking of Presidents" where one biased person cherry-picks events they liked/disliked and ignores much more stringent, objective rankings because they believe they are smarter than every person ever. Yeah, that sounds like a much better bet for all involved "lmao".

 

[Aleksandar37]

Each expert rated every President's performance across the same categories of Presidential leadership and then those results were compiled to rank the Presidents by their scores.

I'm interested in what you think it is if not a comparative ranking of professionals' evaluation of Presidential performance.

Or I guess we could just go by the famed "Aleksandar37 ranking of Presidents" where one biased person cherry-picks events they liked/disliked and ignores much more stringent, objective rankings because they believe they are smarter than every person ever. Yeah, that sounds like a much better bet for all involved "lmao".

If you want to deny that Republicans hold Reagan up as Jesus despite all the horrible crap he did, carry on. You claimed that political scientists and historians claimed otherwise with no "some" qualifier and posted a survey on Presidential leadership when I claimed that some historians might agree with you and some might mention the things I listed. So rather than seeing that we probably at least agree on that, you're jumping straight into the Alex thinks he's smarter than everybody else.

 

[rob112]

If you want to deny that Either party holds Their candidate up as Jesus despite all the horrible crap they did, carry on.

Every president of my lifetime at least

 

[jimbuick]

If you want to deny that Republicans hold Reagan up as Jesus despite all the horrible crap he did, carry on. You claimed that political scientists and historians claimed otherwise with no "some" qualifier and posted a survey on Presidential leadership when I claimed that some historians might agree with you and some might mention the things I listed. So rather than seeing that we probably at least agree on that, you're jumping straight into the Alex thinks he's smarter than everybody else.

No, I'm disputing your claim that Reagan was a "horrible President", and I did so specifically by saying the following:

Political scientists and historians both tend to rank Reagan as one of our nation's best presidents, and that isn't from Republican cherry-picking.

Notice I say those experts tend to rank him as one of our best Presidents, that is, in fact, a qualifier. I referred to multiple polls of those experts in this comment (3 recurring C-SPAN polls and the one linked by another poster) to dispute solely your claim that he was a "horrible" President by pointing out that the experts don't tend to agree with you when asked to grade his performance.

You responded to that by cherry-picking his failures and stating that the people who would rate him highly are those who "have read only one history book" (ie. aren't as smart as you clearly are). Which is hilarious, by the way, since your initial comment was you whingeing about how Republicans cherry-pick his memory and then your first response is to cherry-pick his memory the other way.

I said not one single thing about Republicans holding him up as "Jesus" anywhere, ever. That's nothing more than another stupid strawman you've attempted to build up.

The posts are all there for anyone to see.

It all goes back to that reading thing I was talking about "lmao".

 

[Aleksandar37]

No, I'm disputing your claim that Reagan was a "horrible President", and I did so specifically by saying the following:



Notice I say those experts tend to rank him as one of our best Presidents, that is, in fact, a qualifier. I referred to multiple polls of those experts in this comment (3 recurring C-SPAN polls and the one linked by another poster) to dispute solely your claim that he was a "horrible" President by pointing out that the experts don't tend to agree with you when asked to grade his performance.

You responded to that by cherry-picking his failures and stating that the people who would rate him highly are those who "have read only one history book" (ie. aren't as smart as you clearly are). Which is hilarious, by the way, since your initial comment was you whingeing about how Republicans cherry-pick his memory and then your first response is to cherry-pick his memory the other way.

I said not one single thing about Republicans holding him up as "Jesus" anywhere, ever. That's nothing more than another stupid strawman you've attempted to build up.

The posts are all there for anyone to see.

It all goes back to that reading thing I was talking about "lmao".

Republicans cherry-pick his memory all the time. You asked me what I would base his memory on and I said that I would include those things that I listed which are all true. Are you trying to prove an opinion wrong with other opinions? You can keep attacking me personally, but this is your last warning before I hand it back. I have never once claimed that I was more intelligent than anybody on here, despite it repeatedly being used as a cop-out.

 

[jimbuick]

Republicans cherry-pick his memory all the time. You asked me what I would base his memory on and I said that I would include those things that I listed which are all true. Are you trying to prove an opinion wrong with other opinions? You can keep attacking me personally, but this is your last warning before I hand it back. I have never once claimed that I was more intelligent than anybody on here, despite it repeatedly being used as a cop-out.

I didn't ever ask you what you would base his memory on, anywhere. I stated that the general consensus of experts is that he was not a horrible President, and I supported that by sharing surveys of those experts.

You flatly stated the only people who would rank him highly are those who have only ever read one history book. The implicit claim being that those who are educated and intelligent (like you) rank him as a historically poor President.

Again, it is all there for anyone to see no matter how many weak strawmen you try to craft now.

 

[Aleksandar37]

I didn't ever ask you what you would base his memory on, anywhere. I stated that the general consensus of experts is that he was not a horrible President, and I supported that by sharing surveys of those experts.

You flatly stated the only people who would rank him highly are those who have only ever read one history book. The implicit claim being that those who are educated and intelligent (like you) rank him as a historically poor President.

Again, it is all there for anyone to see no matter how many weak strawmen you try to craft now.

What straw man arguments am I crafting?

 

[justhere4comm]

Mass shooter / Domestic Terrorists was a MAGA... big fan of Trump.
I'm seeing a trend.

 

[Aleksandar37]

View attachment 185385

Mass shooter / Domestic Terrorists was a MAGA... big fan of Trump.
I'm seeing a trend.

Is this really one of his pictures? Seems too easy, although they'd both be morons.

 

[justhere4comm]

Yes.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157763570593075201

 

[Aleksandar37]

Yes.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1157763570593075201

Currently sitting in Dallas at the DFW airport and can't wait to get the hell out! What a horrible way to go too. Just walking around a damn Walmart and bang.

 

[jimbuick]

If you want to deny that Republicans hold Reagan up as Jesus despite all the horrible crap he did, carry on.

Numero uno: At no time did I ever argue that this doesn't happen. You willfully mischaracterized my plainly stated position, which was solely that expert consensus is that he was one of our better Presidents and not a "horrible President" as you flatly stated and that that consensus is not the result of partisan cherry-picking.

You claimed that political scientists and historians claimed otherwise with no "some" qualifier and posted a survey on Presidential leadership when I claimed that some historians might agree with you and some might mention the things I listed.

Numero dos: I clearly qualified my position based on the conducted surveys to show that the consensus of the experts is that he was one of our most successful Presidents to date. You willfully misrepresented that to again create an easier argument to refute to make it appear as though I was cherry-picking historians' opinions to create a facade of consensus.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Numero uno: At no time did I ever argue that this doesn't happen. You willfully mischaracterized my plainly stated position, which was solely that expert consensus is that he was one of our better Presidents and not a "horrible President" as you flatly stated and that that consensus is not the result of partisan cherry-picking.



Numero dos: I clearly qualified my position based on the conducted surveys to show that the consensus of the experts is that he was one of our most successful Presidents to date. You willfully misrepresented that to again create an easier argument to refute to make it appear as though I was cherry-picking historians' opinions to create a facade of consensus.

Did you post more than one survey? I honestly only see the C-SPAN one.

 

[jimbuick]

Did you post more than one survey? I honestly only see the C-SPAN one.

The C-SPAN link has 3 iterations' results in it, and justhere4comm posted the other survey (a business insider link) I had referred to in my original comment.

 

[rob112]

View attachment 185385

Mass shooter / Domestic Terrorists was a MAGA... big fan of Trump.
I'm seeing a trend.

You couldn’t wait to cash in on this could you? Fucking gross.

 

[BennyMagoo79]

Oh yeah number 30000

 

[BennyMagoo79]

Epic thread fellas

 

[BennyMagoo79]

You couldn’t wait to cash in on this could you? Fucking gross.

Why is it gross?

Not surprising he was a MAGA supporter considering the facts. This is the problem with cultivating support from right wingers and racists.

 

[ax1]

Epic thread fellas

Yeah, Donald Trump is running for Prezidump, who the hell ever would have thought of that?

Is this really one of his pictures? Seems too easy, although they'd both be morons.

Although more than likely it was his, I wouldnt jump to conclusions so fast.

 

[rob112]

Why is it gross?

Not surprising he was a MAGA supporter considering the facts. This is the problem with cultivating support from right wingers and racists.

Same reason it was gross when republicans tried to say it was Bernie’s fault one of his supporters shot up the baseball game. Using these sick people for your political gain is gross.

 

[jimbuick]

Why is it gross?

Not surprising he was a MAGA supporter considering the facts. This is the problem with cultivating support from right wingers and racists.

Who exactly do you mean by "right wingers" because that is a phrase that would apply to your average, non-radicalized, conservative American, and I'd like to believe you aren't actually intending to paint with that broad of a brush.