-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up
- Thread starter ArcadiaGP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
I suppose it's possible the party powerful's will give up some of their power, but I'm skeptical.
Bull****. The booming economy is indeed due to Trump removing the hurdles for business. The economy didn't start booming because Obama taxed and regulated the **** out of businesses. The tariffs can certainly ruin that. But it hasn't had a chance to ruin it yet. You can complain when it does. I will. But for now, Trump owns the economic boom.
Fake?
The president's book? That's not a great dodge. I've seen you do better. He hasn't paid our enemies a pile of cash that we know of.
What you're complaining about is Trump's privilege which is irrelevant. Trump has lost wealth and regained enough times that his initial wealth through inheritance is pretty irrelevant now. Trump did make his wealth by creating wealth, at least to an extent to rate that part of it true. He made other people rich along the way to making more wealth for himself, which isn't a bad thing. I strongly suspect Trump greased some palms and bent some rules while making him and some other people wealthy, and that's why I only rated it as partially true. The other part that you should remember what this is all about, which is a comparison between Trump and Clintons. Trump did not earn his wealth laundering the money was paid to give special favors to foreign entities through a dummy charitable foundation. So that part I rate as true.
LOL, that's a distinction without a difference. There's actually no comparison here. Bill didn't find Hillary, Hillary found Bill. She latched onto someone she thought was going somewhere so that he could help her get there too, "glass ceilings" and all. Trump saw someone he liked, and yeah, he kinda paid for them essentially. Find/noticed. What's the meaningful difference here?
Uhhh... Ivana Trump[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...Okay? I see that you've seen the photo of young Hillary about the age she would have hooked up with Bill. Compare.
Bull****. The booming economy is indeed due to Trump removing the hurdles for business. The economy didn't start booming because Obama taxed and regulated the **** out of businesses. The tariffs can certainly ruin that. But it hasn't had a chance to ruin it yet. You can complain when it does. I will. But for now, Trump owns the economic boom.
Tick, tick, tick, tick.... For you, "removing hurdles," is akin to tariffs? I said, if you recall, that you can't tariff your way into prosperity. Not in a global economy you can't.
Fake?
It's not a dodge. The current president criticized Obama's job numbers using the exact same metric that he's taking credit for now. So either his numbers are "fake" too, or he's a hypocrite.
He hasn't paid our enemies a pile of cash that we know of.
I'm unfamiliar with what you mean, unless you're saying if you had some of my money, and you gave it back to me, you consider yourself paying me.
What you're complaining about is Trump's privilege which is irrelevant. Trump has lost wealth and regained enough times that his initial wealth through inheritance is pretty irrelevant now. Trump did make his wealth by creating wealth, at least to an extent to rate that part of it true. He made other people rich along the way to making more wealth for himself, which isn't a bad thing. I strongly suspect Trump greased some palms and bent some rules while making him and some other people wealthy, and that's why I only rated it as partially true. The other part that you should remember what this is all about, which is a comparison between Trump and Clintons. Trump did not earn his wealth laundering the money was paid to give special favors to foreign entities through a dummy charitable foundation. So that part I rate as true.
You must have seen his tax returns since you seem capable to speaking on the president's finances. All I know is that he was BORN rich, and there has never been a time that he wasn't rich. I have no idea how he been able to gain/lose wealth other than what he, himself, has said. If you want to his word on it, fine.
LOL, that's a distinction without a difference. There's actually no comparison here. Bill didn't find Hillary, Hillary found Bill. She latched onto someone she thought was going somewhere so that he could help her get there too, "glass ceilings" and all. Trump saw someone he liked, and yeah, he kinda paid for them essentially. Find/noticed. What's the meaningful difference here?
In the world I know, rich people tend to swing well beyond the fences when it comes to romantic escapades.
Uhhh... Ivana Trump
Uhhh...Okay? I see that you've seen the photo of young Hillary about the age she would have hooked up with Bill. Compare.
Is that supposed to be a picture of Ivana Trump?
If you find yourself arguing that Melania is only better looking than Hilary because she is 22 years younger, you should probably take that as a strong indication that you need stop and either seek professional help in dealing with your delusions or visit an optometrist.
Just so you know, editing inside quotes makes it exceedingly difficult to respond quote for quote. I guess I'll do it like this. Blue is what you responded to. Burgandy is your reply. My response to that is plain text.
***
Bull****. The booming economy is indeed due to Trump removing the hurdles for business. The economy didn't start booming because Obama taxed and regulated the **** out of businesses. The tariffs can certainly ruin that. But it hasn't had a chance to ruin it yet. You can complain when it does. I[t] will. But for now, Trump owns the economic boom.
Tick, tick, tick, tick.... For you, "removing hurdles," is akin to tariffs? I said, if you recall, that you can't tariff your way into prosperity. Not in a global economy you can't.
Uh. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but you're not arguing against anything I said. I dealt with tariffs separately, as you can see in the bold text. Again. The tariffs trump imposed, if left in place, will work against the economy. But they haven't yet. I never said that the tariffs made the economy boom. If you're going to argue against what I'm saying, you would need to argue that Obama's economic policy of adding ever heavier regulations and continued punitive taxes makes economic growth higher than removing regulations and decreasing taxes. If you're not going to argue that, then you're arguing against a straw argument of your own concoction.
Fake? The president's book? That's not a great dodge. I've seen you do better.
It's not a dodge. The current president criticized Obama's job numbers using the exact same metric that he's taking credit for now. So either his numbers are "fake" too, or he's a hypocrite.
Sure it's a dodge. You're trying to make it about what Trump said as if that's valuable. I'm saying what Obama did to **** up the economy and I'm saying what Trump did to free it up. It doesn't matter what he said. It matters what he did. The economy is booming. It's not booming because Obama heaped on mountains of regulations during his two terms. It's booming now because Trump's economic policies > Obama's except for tariffs, if they stay in place long enough to undo things.
He hasn't paid our enemies a pile of cash that we know of.
I'm unfamiliar with what you mean, unless you're saying if you had some of my money, and you gave it back to me, you consider yourself paying me.
Oh, you are most familiar with what I'm talking about. We paid Iran $1.7B. $400M of that was what we had frozen because Iran was acting like *******s. The rest was interest.
1. **** Iran. We seized your **** because you acted like *******s. We'll think about giving you your $400M back when you stop being *******s.
2. **** you if you think you're getting interest on that money.
3. Obama's a ***** for making that deal. It was a lousy deal.
What you're complaining about is Trump's privilege which is irrelevant. Trump has lost wealth and regained enough times that his initial wealth through inheritance is pretty irrelevant now. Trump did make his wealth by creating wealth, at least to an extent to rate that part of it true. He made other people rich along the way to making more wealth for himself, which isn't a bad thing. I strongly suspect Trump greased some palms and bent some rules while making him and some other people wealthy, and that's why I only rated it as partially true. The other part that you should remember what this is all about, which is a comparison between Trump and Clintons. Trump did not earn his wealth laundering the money was paid to give special favors to foreign entities through a dummy charitable foundation. So that part I rate as true.
You must have seen his tax returns since you seem capable to speaking on the president's finances. All I know is that he was BORN rich, and there has never been a time that he wasn't rich. I have no idea how he been able to gain/lose wealth other than what he, himself, has said. If you want to his word on it, fine.
This is a really bad arugment. Trump's tax returns isn't necessary. The large scale projects Trump has undertaken are public record. The things other people who have had business dealings with him have said are out there in plain sight. I'm not a fan of Trump but I don't have such an irrational hatred that I have to fill in the things I don't know with malace. I'm fine with saying the things I don't know are things I don't know. If you have some specific evidence to show that all of Trump's wealth was ill-gotten or purely inherited, that he didn't make a god-damn dime himself, you're welcome to make your case. The demand for evermore tax records is a red herring to hid behind so that you can make unsubstantiated allegations. If you're just going to spew TDS imagination, please continue. I can keep steering you back to the known world long as you like.
LOL, that's a distinction without a difference. There's actually no comparison here. Bill didn't find Hillary, Hillary found Bill. She latched onto someone she thought was going somewhere so that he could help her get there too, "glass ceilings" and all. Trump saw someone he liked, and yeah, he kinda paid for them essentially. Find/noticed. What's the meaningful difference here?
In the world I know, rich people tend to swing well beyond the fences when it comes to romantic escapades.
Okay. You bring up something that's not an argument for or against anything in this conversation, but at least it's real world. Yes. People on the upper tails of the bell curve in competence get to pick from the upper tails of the bell curve in attractiveness. Rich people have privileges normal people don't have. This is one of them. If this was supposed to be a general statement, I have no arguments with that.
Uhhh...Okay? I see that you've seen the photo of young Hillary about the age she would have hooked up with Bill. Compare.
Is that supposed to be a picture of Ivana Trump?
Yeah. At least the website of Ivana photos I found it on seemed to say so. I assumed this was taken before Ivana had the resources for unlimited cosmetic surgery and makeup. Point is, she was more attractive than Hillary before she hooked up with Trump. But I don't know why this is even in the conversation. Both women hooked up with men who could increase their status. So? One was attractive before. Now, unsurprisingly, in old age neither are. We get ugly when we get old.
***
Bull****. The booming economy is indeed due to Trump removing the hurdles for business. The economy didn't start booming because Obama taxed and regulated the **** out of businesses. The tariffs can certainly ruin that. But it hasn't had a chance to ruin it yet. You can complain when it does. I[t] will. But for now, Trump owns the economic boom.
Tick, tick, tick, tick.... For you, "removing hurdles," is akin to tariffs? I said, if you recall, that you can't tariff your way into prosperity. Not in a global economy you can't.
Uh. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but you're not arguing against anything I said. I dealt with tariffs separately, as you can see in the bold text. Again. The tariffs trump imposed, if left in place, will work against the economy. But they haven't yet. I never said that the tariffs made the economy boom. If you're going to argue against what I'm saying, you would need to argue that Obama's economic policy of adding ever heavier regulations and continued punitive taxes makes economic growth higher than removing regulations and decreasing taxes. If you're not going to argue that, then you're arguing against a straw argument of your own concoction.
Fake? The president's book? That's not a great dodge. I've seen you do better.
It's not a dodge. The current president criticized Obama's job numbers using the exact same metric that he's taking credit for now. So either his numbers are "fake" too, or he's a hypocrite.
Sure it's a dodge. You're trying to make it about what Trump said as if that's valuable. I'm saying what Obama did to **** up the economy and I'm saying what Trump did to free it up. It doesn't matter what he said. It matters what he did. The economy is booming. It's not booming because Obama heaped on mountains of regulations during his two terms. It's booming now because Trump's economic policies > Obama's except for tariffs, if they stay in place long enough to undo things.
He hasn't paid our enemies a pile of cash that we know of.
I'm unfamiliar with what you mean, unless you're saying if you had some of my money, and you gave it back to me, you consider yourself paying me.
Oh, you are most familiar with what I'm talking about. We paid Iran $1.7B. $400M of that was what we had frozen because Iran was acting like *******s. The rest was interest.
1. **** Iran. We seized your **** because you acted like *******s. We'll think about giving you your $400M back when you stop being *******s.
2. **** you if you think you're getting interest on that money.
3. Obama's a ***** for making that deal. It was a lousy deal.
What you're complaining about is Trump's privilege which is irrelevant. Trump has lost wealth and regained enough times that his initial wealth through inheritance is pretty irrelevant now. Trump did make his wealth by creating wealth, at least to an extent to rate that part of it true. He made other people rich along the way to making more wealth for himself, which isn't a bad thing. I strongly suspect Trump greased some palms and bent some rules while making him and some other people wealthy, and that's why I only rated it as partially true. The other part that you should remember what this is all about, which is a comparison between Trump and Clintons. Trump did not earn his wealth laundering the money was paid to give special favors to foreign entities through a dummy charitable foundation. So that part I rate as true.
You must have seen his tax returns since you seem capable to speaking on the president's finances. All I know is that he was BORN rich, and there has never been a time that he wasn't rich. I have no idea how he been able to gain/lose wealth other than what he, himself, has said. If you want to his word on it, fine.
This is a really bad arugment. Trump's tax returns isn't necessary. The large scale projects Trump has undertaken are public record. The things other people who have had business dealings with him have said are out there in plain sight. I'm not a fan of Trump but I don't have such an irrational hatred that I have to fill in the things I don't know with malace. I'm fine with saying the things I don't know are things I don't know. If you have some specific evidence to show that all of Trump's wealth was ill-gotten or purely inherited, that he didn't make a god-damn dime himself, you're welcome to make your case. The demand for evermore tax records is a red herring to hid behind so that you can make unsubstantiated allegations. If you're just going to spew TDS imagination, please continue. I can keep steering you back to the known world long as you like.
LOL, that's a distinction without a difference. There's actually no comparison here. Bill didn't find Hillary, Hillary found Bill. She latched onto someone she thought was going somewhere so that he could help her get there too, "glass ceilings" and all. Trump saw someone he liked, and yeah, he kinda paid for them essentially. Find/noticed. What's the meaningful difference here?
In the world I know, rich people tend to swing well beyond the fences when it comes to romantic escapades.
Okay. You bring up something that's not an argument for or against anything in this conversation, but at least it's real world. Yes. People on the upper tails of the bell curve in competence get to pick from the upper tails of the bell curve in attractiveness. Rich people have privileges normal people don't have. This is one of them. If this was supposed to be a general statement, I have no arguments with that.
Uhhh...Okay? I see that you've seen the photo of young Hillary about the age she would have hooked up with Bill. Compare.
Is that supposed to be a picture of Ivana Trump?
Yeah. At least the website of Ivana photos I found it on seemed to say so. I assumed this was taken before Ivana had the resources for unlimited cosmetic surgery and makeup. Point is, she was more attractive than Hillary before she hooked up with Trump. But I don't know why this is even in the conversation. Both women hooked up with men who could increase their status. So? One was attractive before. Now, unsurprisingly, in old age neither are. We get ugly when we get old.
how about the Dems booing when it's suggested that communism isn't the way to go? At least now we see what these people really are. So many years wasted and people lost fighting communism. Now these people want to serve it up on a silver platter.
That, right there, is ample reason to appoint a Special Council to investigate Democrat collusion with their Communist allies. Let's find out how many Democrat CongressCritters are in bed with our enemies, literally as well as figuratively.
I have a hard time disagreeing with the list of Communist goals from 1963?
Seems the takeover is going well for the Socialist/Communist!
http://www.restoring-america.com/Documents/THE NAKED COMMUNIST GOALS WITH NOTES.pdf
Seems the takeover is going well for the Socialist/Communist!
http://www.restoring-america.com/Documents/THE NAKED COMMUNIST GOALS WITH NOTES.pdf
The UK Guardian is offering some helpful advice for the Democrat candidates: Want to defeat Trump? Attack Biden
The Guardian is encouraging candidates to be even more woke/progressive and attacking one of the more "centrist" Democrats. That'll win them the next presidential term for sure...
The Guardian is encouraging candidates to be even more woke/progressive and attacking one of the more "centrist" Democrats. That'll win them the next presidential term for sure...
- Status
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
The Funny Picture/Video Thread, 16th Edition…The laughs just keep on coming…- Latest: GodFearinGunTotin
-
-
-
-
Staff online
-
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- semperfi211
- GodFearinGunTotin
- Cavman
- sgtmack
- KittySlayer
- Cameramonkey
- printcraft
- mr.steve
- AlienRayGun
- snorko
- mrobison90
- stephen87
- Mikey1911
- lafrad
- WhiskE TangO
- keeph8n
- mondoreli
- crookcountygo
- gassprint1
- Rimfar
- ChristianPatriot
- Pyro
- shootersix
- Liberty Sanders
- NyleRN
- Snapdragon
- BigMoose
- Haven
- Gunmetalgray
- BeDome
- Leo
- Jowl1
- JRR85
- teedotlonz
- Brandon
- Brad69
- oze
- jaredj1994
- sp3worker
- diver dan
- Godbybe
- Jlasiter
- historian
- natekup
- littletommy
- tom1025
- glock addict
- Leadeye
- Malware
- 45sRfun